Jump to content

Talk:Con Air

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Jurisdiction?

[edit]

According to the JPATS page, states are able to use the airline as well.--RAult (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments about legality in this section should be referenced; at least one, the assertion that Poe would have an "air-tight" self-defense claim, is debatable. A defendant claiming self-defense bears the burden of proof in most states, and must prove 3 things: that his life was in immediate danger, that a reasonable person would have acted the same under the circumstances, and most importantly, that he did everything in his power to escape rather than kill his assailant. A self-defense claim would be shot down in many states because he immediately used a lethal move once his opponent brandished the knife; legally, you must at least try to run in this situation. Some D.A.'s would overlook it, except for the fact he was a willing combatant when the fight started; a willing combatant in a fight that "goes wrong" can never be sure to dodge a manslaughter charge. The presence of his wife in the truck might help his case but it would be far from a sure defense... The "air-tight self-defense claim" is as much an urban legend as the "body as lethal weapon." Ignorance about what's required to prove self-defense gets a lot of guys thrown into prison, particularly when they willingly join a fight that goes wrong. Others think and prepare about "no-escape" type of situations so much that they unconsciously maneuver themselves into them. They fail to try hard enough to avoid trouble, then the court throws out their weak defense.

Actually, the self-defense claim would be pretty good. Poe is clearly in Federal detention, but if he hadn't been mustered out yet the Feds might have been able to prosecute him. In any event, the entire section lacks sources. DCB4W (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Lauren Pratt made her film debut as Debbie/6 year old girl. She would later gain notoriety in the tell all book by Antonio Gamble Gamble True Gamble Fo Reel: The Antonio Gamble Story" Is this even a real book? Or even a real person for that mater? Because I can't find any information about it except on this very page.

More discussion on the self-defense argument

[edit]

"A self-defense claim would be shot down in many states because he immediately used a lethal move once his opponent brandished the knife; legally, you must at least try to run in this situation. Some D.A.'s would overlook it, except for the fact he was a willing combatant when the fight started; a willing combatant in a fight that "goes wrong" can never be sure to dodge a manslaughter charge."

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. But, if you consider the fact that Poe was a soldier, his training would not automatically assume him to run away. His goal would eb to neutralize the threat. if this was a combat situation, you wouldn't expect a soldier to try to get safely away without knowing that the combatant won't come after you. Ok, say Poe did not defend himself and got away. In that scene, that guy would have followed right behind Poe and he would've stabbed him, plain and simple. I mean, it really is self-defense, because his life was in danger. Whether he thought he was going to lose his life or not, we will never know. But, it's not just so simple to say that claiming self-defense isn't credible in this case.

Rayghost (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section is original research, so I removed it. It's not a relevant sub-topic to discuss unless secondary sources explicitly bring it up. We editors can't introduce new sub-topics of our own accord, citing sources that otherwise have nothing to do with the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Garland Green rape the little girl?

[edit]

I question the statement that the little girl escaped Garland unharmed, I think he may have raped the little girl as the movie provides two clues. The first clue is somewhat symbolic, a scene with a teacup cracked in half, implying force and violence. The second clue is that Garland has a bloodstain around his groin region when he is seen buckling in on the airplane as it is about to leave Lerner before the plane takes off and the girl is seen waving.--63.117.244.158 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The girl is seen smiling and waving at the airplane. To even suggest that this same child may have been raped by a violent criminal just prior to this scene is deeply disturbing.Racerx11 (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit The girl was not raped I believe he may have moved her out of the way when he herd the sound of fun shots, there was no blood on his pants it was the doll with red shorts. Positive thinking maybe?? Why else would she be smiling and happy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.168.226 (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the official novelization of the screenplay commissioned by Touchstone, the girl says "Good-bye Garland. Come again soon," as the plane takes off from the trailer park (page 177). Kotterdale99 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crew Death

[edit]

Shouldn't this be added to the wiki page: "During the filming of Conair starring Nicolas Cage and John Cusak, a cargo plane fell on a crew member named Phillip Swartz. According to the Los Angeles Times, Swartz was a member of the special effects department on this movie. He was working on the plane when it fell, pinning him in place. Swartz was crushed to death by the plane, which places his accident among the most brutal Hollywood movie set deaths to date." Link: http:// www . associatedcontent . com/article/5407292/hollywood_movie_set_deaths.html?cat=40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.164.32 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this information to the article. - Kollision (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSPA

[edit]

Should it be noted somewhere about how the online webcomic Homestuck has a sort of obsession with Con Air, the its main character John liking the movie, and referencing it throughout the comic multiple times? It even has its own flash animation, its own song, and a tribute song to its starring character, and several major references that tie it directly into the plot. Link: http://www.mspaintadventures.com/ 71.108.248.226 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the plot summary: Finally, Poe is able to meet Tricia and Casey who have been brought by Larkin to meet him. Cameron Poe then reunites with his loving wife and daughter." Did someone phrase it that way on purpose? It made me laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.217.246 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greene's description

[edit]

I'm wondering about this line in the write up, ...drove through three states with the head of his underage victim on the cockpit. Where is the "cockpit" in a car? Is this what he said? Just wanted to make sure!Rhodesisland (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Greene says is "One girl... I drove through three states wearing her head as a hat." Don't know where the person who added the cockpit bit got it from. I have fixed the mistake. - Kollision (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended version

[edit]

A recent submission relates to a supposedly bootleg version of an extended "director's cut". Any chance this can be verified? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC). well, that didn't take long, see new edit; it was a bonafide version that was released. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

The reason for the expanded plot summary was to counter the use of a "Characters" section that dramatically increased the total size of the article. There is a typical choice to make in a major article, either incorporating the characters and their roles into a plot section or creating a larger, character-oriented cast section. The article was clearly moving to the use of an expanded plot. In taking it back a year to the older version and adding a great number of errors back into the plot, is not advancing the development of the article, neither is "tagging" to make a point. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC). This is the difference in using the old version of the article: 1,800 words (plus refs) for combined plot/characters compared to current edition of the plot section: 900 words. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

With all due respect to everyone involved, who genuinely want to make the article the best it can be, we simply can't unilaterally decide that all articles are supposed to follow WP:FILMPLOT except this one. A 925-word version of the plot is so far over the 400- to 700-word parameters of that Film Project guideline — one derived by countless editors gradually over the course of years until that consensus was reached — that there's really no justification for it. If the incredibly convoluted plot of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol can be given in 700 words, so can the plot of this ordinary action movie. Let's please respect WP:FILMPLOT consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and simply reverting to a poorly written version of the plot is also not the way to go. FWiW, this is, again, not a consensus decision, and have you seen No Country for Old Men (Plot/Characters: 975 words). Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
NCoOM is a critically-acclaimed film with a complex plot. This is an action/popcorn movie. It can be trimmed a LOT. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying, it couldn't or shouldn't, but simply inserting a veeery old version that has been revised many times since, was an issue, especially when it was the difference between a 1,800 word section and one approximately half that size. FWiW, when BRD is in place, the D is for discuss, not dump. (Treat this as less a rant as constructive criticism of a unilateral action).Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC) I do know that CON Air is not academy award material, but, apparently, it has become somewhat of a trashy classic, and although I did not write the main plot, it was an amalgam of many editors getting in their favourite scenes and characters that expanded the plot/characters section to a gargantuan and bloated state. Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think the thing to do is to take the ostensibly crappy version that meets consensus guidelines — that is, the 669-word version that's here — and improve it. Improving doesn't just mean adding details — as any good writing teacher will tell us, it's about condensing overdetail, about using one well-chosen word instead of two or three words, and about excising details that add color but no pertinent plot details
For example, in the last sentence, "All of the convicts are now dead or recaptured, except for Garland Greene, playing craps and sipping margaritas in a casino," is it really critically important to an understanding of the film that we know the exact game he's playing or the exact alcoholic drink? How about, "All the convicts are now dead or recaptured except Greene, luxuriating at a casino." We've gone from 21 words to 14. And that's just one very simple, basic example.
Converting from passive voice to active voice also saves words: "Poe is thanked by both Baby-O and Sally for his help." > "Baby-O and Sally thank Poe for his help." From 11 words to 8, saying the same thing but more succinctly. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That process has already started but it should have begun here on the talk page rather than using a "slice-and-dice" approach without even checking to see whether the edit version was even appropriate. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Conair actually happened in cambodia- CIA operation

[edit]

A film of the CIA opn exists. 01:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC) b p fabbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.180.88 (talk)

Cast list

[edit]

@Masem: I think most actors not introduced, if anything, goes in favor of having cast names in plot, since this film has such an extensive cast, and we could obviously add first names too, if that is a problem. Reading the plot, I found myself switching back and forth between Plot and Cast sections, trying to picture the characters in my head, since it's impossible to remember so many people from the Cast section at one time. Also FYI the edit summary on your last edit got cut off. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are a lot of bit parts, many not central to the plot, and people keep adding to the plot with those minor characters; as such the large number of names that would need to be included and blue-linked would slow down reading. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Con Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Con Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Con_Air&oldid=1206767124"