Talk:Air Force One (film)

	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
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Film Still is a Partial Spoiler

The still chosen from the film shows that the president was on the plane and that he is captured at some point. It's not a gigantic spoiler and maybe similar stuff was in the previews, but I wish I hadn't seen it. It's easy to look at an article without reading the plot section, but having a spoiler image is different. Seems like it wouldn't make much difference to use an image from early in the movie that doesn't give away anything. 69.149.34.171 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains spoilers. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanker Explosion

I elaborated in the synopsis on what might have caused the tanker to explode. Previously, it just said the tanker explodes without any real reason why it would have done that. Tankers don't just spontaneously blow up. Now, hopefully, readers should have some idea about what happened in that scene. -HuronKing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.18.248 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be a dry-break mechanism in the fuel boom to prevent any chance of a fire, let alone an explosion. It's Hollywood, do you expect realism when you can have drama? Call it cinematic licence.--128.240.229.3 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Hole

The article says: "The film makes no attempt to explain a gaping plot hole. One key character is discovered to be a traitor, but no explanation is given for his betrayal." I dunno, though. Wasn't he a bad guy the whole time? If so, I don't see why the movie needs to explain it. It doesn't need to explain why Harrison Ford's character wanted to become president, or how he met his wife -- they ("they" meaning those points) are out of the scope of the story... --Peng 28 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Yes, he was the bad guy the whole time, and we don't discover it until near the end of the movie. He was still a traitor, however. He was on the President's cabinet, but betrayed him. Since he's the "bad guy," we kind of should be told what his motivation was. As it is, they just have him as the bad guy without any explanation for his motivation. — Frecklefoot | Talk June 28, 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Erm.. we discover it right at the start of the movie: if we're talking about Xander Berkeley's character, he's the Secret Service agent that shot the other agents, and he wasn't on the President's cabinet either. Saying that, there wasn't any development of the character, but I wouldn't say it's a plot hole (I'd imagine that his motivation would be a big wad of cash, and that would make for a dull scene). One plot hole, however, is that he thought he could escape instead of the president and not be discovered: the wreckage would almost certainly be recovered (the President's body, state secrets, etc.) and they'd discover William H. Macy's body with big holes in it. He'd be "debriefed" extensively too, and I doubt any future president would trust him (as he says in his last line). There are a whole bunch of other holes to go with that one. Gid 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the time Berkley's character shot Macy's it was clear that the plane was going to crash into the Caspian Sea. Recovering bodies would be dfficult if not impossible, and they would likely be mangled by the force of impact and partially eaten by marine life before they could be recovered. Besides, the plane already contained the bodies of several people who had been shot. How would anyone know that Macy hadn't been killed by a terrorist? All the witnesses to the shooting would have been dead if Berkley's character had gotten away instead of the president. The president's wife and daughter might report that they saw Macy alive at the end, but Berkeley could easily have said a terrorist had survived and, after the wife and daughter left, had managed to shoot Macy, the president and the airman who was trying to rescue him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.113 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

An (of course subsonic) airliner dodges two AA missiles fired in it`s tail without any chaffs or flares! Yeah! 10 stars for realisticism! Petersen seems to have been really busy falling deep since Das Boot.

-Removed Trivia about Plot Hole, the Secret Service member was clearly bad from the start of the movie (i am watching it now). Additionally, chaffs were fired to avoid the missile, don't believe me, then watch the movie for once. --Massrepublican

I saw that part of the movie, but saw no chaffs. The aircraft rolled slightly and the missiles passed over it`s wings. The missiles approached the plane too slowly anyway (the differance in speeds should be 2 machs or so). And i remember the president taking commands to maneauver the plane to dodge the missile (and warning his familly to prepare for that).

Besides chaffs would have hardly done any good as they are used to confuse radar-guided missiles. The aircraft should have fired flares to confuse the missiles as they obviously flew close enough for their infra-red close-aproach guidance to start (or they could have been IR guidance-only missiles anyway). And I definitely saw no flares being fired, as their fireball appearance would have been easy to see especially as all of this was happening during a night.

--If you rewatch the movie it is quite obvious that flares are fired.

junk trivia

The practice of having "trivia" that is far removed from the subject of the article has poped it's ugly head in this article too. Just because the TV show 24 has some common cast members with this film is not particularily notable and doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopedia. The other trivia items are directly related to the film, like the aircraft and locations used for filming and what camera techniques were used. --rogerd 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"that automatic weapon fire in the corridors of the aircraft would quickly shred its aluminum skin and ruin its aerodynamics."

I would contest that this is wrong: aren't the bulkheads of Air Force One kevlar-lined? And in any case, wouldn't all firearms aboard the plane be loaded with frangible/fragmenting ammunition? User:Spock 03:11 April 4, 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this statement is wrong. Full auto small arms fire would make a "sewing machine" pattern of small, neat holes, or a cluster of closely spaced, small neat holes. Considering the massive skin surface of the aircraft, the chance of there being enough disruption to cause significant aerodynamics is remote. Greater problems than this would be caused if certain hydraulic lines or wiring harnesses were hit.

Further clarification: frangible and fragmenting ammunition are two different things. Fragmenting ammunition comes apart in dense media, such as a human target, as an additional wounding mechanism. Frangible ammunition is designed to disintegrate when it hits something sturdy, such as brick or thick steel, as a safety mechanism. It's an open question whether frangibles would penetrate an aircraft skin. I'd think they'd penetrate. Next time I have a chance to go shooting, I'll see what frangibles do vs a 55 gallon steel drum.

Trivia False?

I am calling into question this particular trivia passage

"Viewers are given a detailed tour of the aircraft and its systems; both real and fictional. Most notable among the departures from reality include that the real Air Force One does not carry a known escape capsule, and that automatic weapon fire in the corridors of the aircraft would quickly shred its aluminum skin and ruin its aerodynamics. Contrary to popular belief, however, it would not necessarily result in instant death for all aboard; it would merely force a quick landing."

If I remember correctly, the use of special hollow-point bullets allows a weapon to be fired within an airplane without fear of penetrating the skin, even if shot at a window, although I imagine that glass windows would shatter, although plastic ones may withstand several hits. If I recall correctly, these are the types of bullets used by Federal Air Marshals to allow counter-terrorism fire in the event of an emergency without fear of destroying the plane.--71.235.66.254 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to that trivia quote specifically, it takes more than a few bullet holes to impair the aerodynamics of a 747 fuselage. During World War-2, bombers, which were much smaller than a 747, would commonly return to base from bombing missions peppered with holes and even with large chunks of control surfaces missing. In other instances fighter planes have returned to base with most of an entire wing blown off. There's also the example of an air bus ferrying tourists between Hawaiian islands which lost a very lengthy section of the upper half of its fuselage (caused by metal fatigue) and still made a (difficult) landing. Bullet holes per se won't bring down a 747. It would only impair flyability if the bullets caused major leakage in the fuel reservoir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song sung by prisoners

Does anyone know the name of the russian song sung by the prisoners while radek is being released?Mysticflame 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Internationale, in Russian. Lawrence King 05:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - it's the old soviet anthem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.164.2 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Internationale is the old Soviet anthem. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there was some controversy about the bad guys singing the song that is still sung by every socialist party in the world, including democratic parties. I remember I wasn't amused by it.MrEvers (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@MrEvers:What would you put instead? I remember 1997 in ex-USSR very well, and yes, that's what they'd probably would sing. The movie is my favourite.

Should trivia for the real AF one, be in the real AF one section?

There is an entry under trivia that AF One referes to any plane that POTUS is on at the time. While this is true, shouldn't this be in the entry for the real AF One and not here? --Tom 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed wrong date

Radek's capture was actually three weeks earlier than the President's speech, not two.--Hasty5o 06:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

I corrected the rating. It said Air Force One is rated PG-13. If you look on MPAA's web site, you'll see that it's actually rated R.

Weapons

The trivia section states that MP5 A5's are used in the movie. Anyone know if this is definite, or is it possible the ones shown are A3's instead? The two weapons are virtually identical, so it's surprising to see such a specific indicator here). Frankg 06:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've checked again; they're A5s. The A5 model has a different handgrip than the older A3 model, which has a checkered like handgrip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.115.228 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Gibbs the traitor?

On the plot summary of the article, it never states why Gibbs, the senior Secret Service agent, became the traitor in the first place. I watched the movie and couldn't figure it out either. What caused Gibbs to betray the President in the first place? --70.179.170.119 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Gibbs had been a CIA Spook and had lost a lot due to the end of the Cold War so was angry at the US Government and knew the terrorists from his CIA days. Johnlongbond (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Named by Quote

I dont know if this is true of everywhere but many people refare to this movie as "get off my plane" (said the wat ford does) instead of naming the movie. Should this be mentioned?

That's an awesome line, but I've never heard the film referred to as "Get Off My Plane" instead of the real title.... Kingsfold (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone remember this line?

From Just Cause: President Mendoza: "I've seen Air Force X times, and I can assure you that the President always wins!" Rico: "Yeah, but the important thing was that the President was the good guy, and today, I'm the good guy." Or something like that. But can anyone remember X? I'm leaning towards 3 or 5 times, but I need confirmation before it can become References in Popular Culture worthy. ~~Lazyguy~~I r needing userboxes plz! 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons/aircraft trivia

I've tagged the Weapons and Aircraft sections as trivia because they are trivia - listcruft that doesn't really matter to the overall plot of the film. I don't see anything similar in war movie articles I've looked at like Apocalypse Now or Saving Private Ryan. I almost deleted on sight, but I imagine there's a chance someone could justify the importance of certain elements from those lists (not all) and integrate or otherwise prosify them into the article. AUTiger » talk 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

I thought the plot summary was way too long & overdetailed so I shortened it considerably. Not that I was trying to provoke anything, but let the debate begin! Tommyt 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the plot summary here? It jumps from the very beginning of the movie almost straight to the end, skipping the entire movie. It also includes information not in the plot of the film, such as why Liberty 24 becomes Air Force One, which would be better off in another section. Telinome (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Radek Goof

The General was taken in the middle of the night as shown at the start of the film. When he was taken it is obvious that he is in PJ's, but when he is release from prison they return to him his uniform. What The!

Who's to say his uniform wasn't taken to the prison on the off chance he would be let out? Or maybe they sent a new uniform to the prison for the same purpose.

If you were watching, as he signed out there was a uniform folded and waiting for him 70.246.152.29 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Dark

The extremely popular video game for the N64, Perfect Dark, based it's Air Force One level on the design from this movie, complete with Presidental escape pod. Noteable or not? Lots42 13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goof?

The article seems to think Ford offering the employee 'Postmaster General' is a goof...in the terms of the movie, the Ford's character and the employee were in danger of being shot to death at any second, the general comment seems to be a stress relieving joke. Lots42 13:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:3b90005ece28f.jpg

Image:3b90005ece28f.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCIS

Wouldn't the NCIS bit be more suitable for the NCIS article? Lots42 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. It's more important to the production information for NCIS than an only slightly related note here. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually already mentioned in the episode article, so I just removed it from this page. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god this movie is sh@t. It is garbage. GARBAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.34.26 (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential reaction

Does anyone else remember how President Clinton reacted to this film? I seem to recall that he watched the film twice in a row, and said he was not happy with the portrayal of the security measures on the plane. That is, not that they were portrayed, but how they were portrayed. I recall he said the film wasn't accurate, and that the terrorists would not have been able to accomplish the hijacking. I don't recall all the details, but if someone hasn't tracked this down already in the next few days, I'll add something to the reception section. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marine One?

"Liberty 2-4 is changing call-signs... Liberty 2-4 is now Marine One!" Surely that should be "Air Force One" not "Marine One". Given it's Air Force Pararescue mentioned just above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.162.5 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the movies it says "Air Force One and not "Marine One". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.185.7 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Allen

Tim Allen isn't listed in the cast. I just re-watched this movie and did not see him in the cast and it seems incredibly unlikely that they would cast Tim Allen as a prison guard. I'm deleting him from the cast section. If I'm wrong please re-add him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.21.138 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is the prison warden when they release the Russian General. It was a cameo [1] and he can be seen clearly on the telephone at the prison end sequence. -OberRanks (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Allen's own site does not list this movie. http://www.timallen.com/actor/credits.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.175.178 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an actor who just likes very much like him. I'll try and upload a screenshot one of these days. -OberRanks (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian actor Pavel Lychnikoff bears a resemblance to Tim Allen, and is listed in the credits of "Air Force One" as a prison guard. — Michael J 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Revamp

I've just redone the plot a bit, so that it makes a bit more sense, and added in links on necessary terms where it would be useful to lookup straight away. Warfreak (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blueprint

Although it was made already in 1997, this film is the perfect blueprint for so much neo-con propaganda, in books, in newspapers and in movies, of the Bush years. It completely sizes up the Cheney/Podhoretz/Horowitz/Bolton world view.

Plot Summary is WAY too long

Holy cow, is the plot summary excessive. No reason for it to be 1,121 words. Of course, with a blow-by-blow account of exactly how the plane broke into pieces, and bits like “Gibbs wonders aloud why he was the one to die,” it’s not all that surprising.

Please refer to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for guidelines is what should be in a plot summary summary, and what shouldn’t.

Meanwhile, I took a chainsaw to the summary and resulted in a much more manageable 716 words. Bramton1 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect reference to "Air Force Pararescue"

In the last paragraph of the plot section, the "MC-130 Hercules" is incorrectly indicated as belonging to Air Force Pararescue. It was actually an MC-130E Combat Talon from the 8th Special Operations Squadron, Air Force Special Operations Command.

see also: 8th SoS Official Fact Sheet: "Even Hollywood relied on the crews of the 8th in the 1997 hit movie "Air Force One." " Also, if you look closely at the shoulder patches of the air crew in the cargo compartment, you'll note the camouflage version of the 8th's squadron patch (orange background, black blackbird).

I was a pilot in the 9th SOS (Eglin AFB) while the filming of the air rescue scenes were being performed. I remember the talk around the squadron as to why the VC-25 was on our ramp for so long, and it came up that the 8th was doing some in flight film work for a Hollywood movie. We gave them grief for quite a long time about that! 50.137.56.207 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So--some guy with the login GCW50 came in and reversed the changes I made regarding the aircraft type above, based on a guess since he was an HC-130 navigator---obviously without reading this Talk section--his rationale being "he team that finds the capsule are wearing the maroon berets and insignia of PJs. The first two people that slide down the zip line are referred to as PJs. The aircraft appears and thus is more likely an HC-130, not an Mc-130"....not sure how that compares to actual references and personal observation of the filming of the movie, but I can't be bothered to go back and manually correct it again. If someone actually wants this article to be factually correct, you may want to revert GCW50's incorrect changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.115.9 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I just noticed that in the film itself, the main antagonist is identified as Egor Korshunov, but in the credits he is listed as Ivan Korshunov. I think that the filmmakers confused him with General Ivan Radek, the other antagonist of the picture. Since his name is actually Egor, is it okay if we leave it as Egor? What are your thoughts? (Burmiester (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ethnicity: are the villains supposed to be Kazakhs, masquerading as a Russian news crew? They are identified on Wikipedia and many other websites as Russians. Is Radek Russian or Kazakh?

Kazakhs have nothing to do with it. In 1991, North Kazakhstan was majority Russian-populated. Though the use of the Kazakh flag is funny. I don't know if it's a plain mistake, or meant to mean that it's used as somewhat a claim to the territory of Kazakhstan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.246.65 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Air Force One (film). 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/20081206072109/http://www.moviemusicuk.us:80/af1rancd.htm to http://www.moviemusicuk.us/af1rancd.htm
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://garyoldman.info/Movies/thumbnails.php?album=18

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air Force One (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/matinee.cfm?Film=air-for&File=productn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 01:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor.

A Major General states that The President is a Medal of Honor "winner" , a General should know that a person does not win a Medal of Honor, it is not a prize, it is awarded, not won.PC 5002 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2022 Bob Lee Swagger 2007 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Close

I noticed Glenn Close isn’t listed in the infobox under “Starring”. I saw an invisible comment that said she is uncredited on the movie’s poster so don’t add her. Is it a Wikipedia rule to go based off of who is listed on the movie’s poster? Glenn Close plays a huge role in this movie & I think she should be added to the list. Thoughts? Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is she is not on the poster's billing list. We wish she was on it so we can add her name to the infobox. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]