Talk:Source Code/Archive 1

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

Spoiler

Deleted the following lines

"In his final trips, Captain Stevens begins to suspect that he -- or more specifically Sean (whose body he inhabits) -- is the bomber."

Seemed like a spoiler to me, not a very good idea to have it in the article, especially with the movie release so far away. 188.200.73.137 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. Wikipedia does not avoid spoilers. If people don't want the plot revealed, perhaps they shouldn't read the plot section of the film's article on an encyclopaedia. Geoff B (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
For an unreleased movie, I expect to read enough of the plot for me to make up my mind about whether I want to keep it on my radar to see it when it comes out. That doesn't seem unrealistic. How many other upcoming movie listing sites spoil a key part of the story for a movie that isn't due out until next year? Furthermore, I don't think Wikipedia's spoiler policy is thought out enough for unreleased media. What are the authoritative sources that reveal the full plot of the story, if there's no book to go by e.g.? How do we even know that this ending will be part of the movie? Maybe if it's posted to prominently on Wikipedia, the producers decide to alter it? Consider what the intent of the majority of the visitors of the page is. They didn't come here to be spoiled. They came to be find out if an upcoming project is interesting. Jschuur (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting the spoiler again, on the grounds that you cannot cite verifiable sources for the ending of the movie. We may differ in opinion on whether the spoiler policy makes sense to apply equally for released and unreleased works, but verifiability of the content still ranks higher than the spoiler policy. Per the WP:V, the burden of proof lies with the editor adding content. Cite your reliable source for the full plot and note the requirement that these sources need to have a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. Until such proof can be provided, it's the responsibility of the person posting the disputed content to not restore it. Jschuur (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thank you for pointing out. Do you think a "spoiler warning" should be added? 188.200.73.137 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus people...you just spoiled the movie for me. Now I'm sad...and I agree with Jschuur, people do read the plot/synopsis for unreleased movies to get an idea of what its about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.20.56 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What did you expect to find in the plot section of a film's article in an encyclopaedia? Your own fault, stop blaming others for your own actions, and develop a sense of responsibility. Geoff B (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Source Code (film) → Source Code — Per WP:PRECISION, we do not need to disambiguate if the topics are in different cases. The film is in title case, so when readers explicitly search for "Source Code", they will arrive at the film article. WP:PRECISION mentions red meat vs. Red Meat. Film examples include panic room vs. Panic Room and pulp fiction vs. Pulp Fiction. We can add a hatnote to point readers to source code just in case, but it is much more likely than not that they will be looking for the film. --Erik (talk | contribs) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment or we could just build a dab page at Source Code, since most likely links here will be for "source code", and people enter title case into the search box as well. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    Dab pages are for when there are several possible targets. When there are only 2, as here, hatnotes suffice and are much preferred. A dab page would only create an unnecessary extra step for readers to reach their intended target. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and hatnote each, per my above comment. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support with hatnotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – not really a disambiguation issue as such, since Source Code is not really an alternative name for "Source code". The film should get the title page. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - with hatnote per above. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Erik (no relation) and I think there probably ought to be a hatnote. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    I do find it funny that I run across you fairly often since the Fight Club discussion. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Unique by means of capitalization. Hatnote will be required though. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source Code/Source code distinction

Hi!

I interpret the previous discussion to indicate that Source Code should lead to the movie, but Source code should lead to the concept. Isn't this the case? If not, I'd seriously request a reconsideration. Merely typing "source code" should lead to the concept, not the movie.

Thanks. Kumar Appaiah (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation was correct. The reason is that the film is the more likely end result people are looking to reach (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). If, at some point in the future, we determine that is no longer the case, we can always change it. Millahnna (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Kumar Appaiah (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
People will only think about this being the most common usage as it is currently in the cinema. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I do suspect that eventually we'll end up changing it. Could be a little bit of recentism but as long as all the dabs are done properly it shouldn't be a big deal; everyone should be able to get to the article they are actually looking for firly easily. Millahnna (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The REAL Sean Fentress

Does anyone know who the actor is that played the REAL Sean Fentress (the guy everyone in the Source Code sees, the picture on the wallet, Colter Steven's reflection)? I think it deserves a place in the article (Under Cast. Since the voice cameo got billing on WP, the body cameo should too). -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I found it. It's Frédérick De Grandpré. Source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0214810/ -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hero not really dead suggestion (for the plot summary)

At some point in the movie, it came to me that the hero might not be really dead (what a plot twist that would be...), given that his father speaks about getting just ashes back and we see him in the "incubator". Later this idea is rejected, given that the whole body is shown, but still, this seems to be a trick from the screenwriter and maybe worth mentioning in the plot summary. Adam Mirowski (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Character section needs to go

trivial and OR. Not necessary at all and written in opinionated format. Example:

She says exactly the same thing at the beginning of every sequence, no matter what facial emotions Colter is expressing (fear, confusion), whereas real human beings react in microseconds. Furthermore, when the bomb goes off ahead, it does not faze her. She still wants to know what the hell is going on beating up a guy on a train bench. All of this may be explainable if it has something of a simulation aspect, which is not perfect.

Rather than adding a tag, I suggest the whole section be axed because it cannot be polished in any way. Important character facts should be merged into the plot summary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. Just do it. Exok (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree and have removed the section. Actors and their roles should be discussed using secondary sources in the "Cast" section. The plot summary is adequate for describing each character's noteworthy actions in the process of describing the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Mistake in Plot description

I am inexperienced with editing at Wikipedia so I am not going to. I am however hereby reporting a mistake in the plot description. I will let you guys verify and edit.

The plot description now: Once back aboard the train, Stevens disarms Frost, and then handcuffs Frost to a railing. Stevens uses Frost's cell phone to call authorities to inform them of the location of the dirty bomb, and then proceeds to throw Frost's phone off the train. Stevens borrows a phone to send an email, and he then calls his estranged father under the guise of a fellow soldier, mending the emotional distance from their past. This is incorrect.

What did happen: Stevens disarms Frost, handcuffs him to a railing. Uses the phone that was attached to the BOMB to call the authorities. Throws BOTH bomb phones aside. Takes Frosts OWN cellphone, and that is the phone he sends the email to Goodwin with and calls his dad with.

This can be verified by checking from 1 hour and 10 minutes into the movie.

Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.199.150 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Science behind the Science Fiction" section

Marked it for refimprove because the only sources provided by whoever wrote it are a YouTube video and someone's blog. Considered deleting it altogether, but thought it might be worthwhile to keep, but it needs to be sourced by someone who knows about it. - Salamurai (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd go further and say that the whole section is complete bunkum, especially the stuff about consciousness affecting the outcome of the double-slit experiment, which is a preposterous misreading of quantum mechanics. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 02:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot clarification

What does "allowed to die in peace afterwards instead of being held alive as a military artifact" mean? That he was murdered? The plot summary (which is so long it is more like a condensed book) is very poorly written and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically yes, he was killed, but given his situation, rather than murder I'd call it euthanasia. --uKER (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary

This article needs a MUCH shorter plot summary 82.46.109.233 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The plot is under 700 words, which is within the guideline set down by WP:FILMPLOT. The plot is intricate and features a lot of twists and turns that cannot be accurately conveyed in a shorter, more general description. Elizium23 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I was the one who shortened it. Would you prefer a slightly longer description? We have three words of elbow room, after all. Interchangeable 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Box office numbers

Grossing over 54 Billion with a "B?" I don't believe it. It must be a misprint! 71.106.65.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was; thanks for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Possession

Pretty amazing that this guy takes over some poor schmuck's body and nobody turns a hair. Sean Fentress is essentially murdered in the alternate reality and his body taken over by Colter Stevens. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Filming in Ottawa

Turned out the filming in Ottawa never happened : http://popgoesthenews.blogspot.ca/2010/03/jake-gyllenhaal-wont-be-shooting-in.html?m=1

jlam (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the info. jlam (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

References to use

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Physicist Jim Kakalios discusses the seeming paradox of the ending. Probably nothing useful but if an analysis section develops eventually it might come in handy. Millahnna (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • production notes - online copy of the Production Notes for the movie, doesn't list full cast though. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the request was withdrawn by nominator. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Source Code → Source Code (film) – the capital C is currently the only thing distinguishing the film from the concept Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:PRECISION. If someone types in "Source Code" with a capital C, why would they be looking for the software concept? Also, did you read the original requested move? Same arguments. The issue also popped up over at Paranormal Activity's talk page a little while ago. I'd suggest reading through that and the original move request here and seeing if it changes your mind. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. - Closing early as clearly not gonna happen, There's already a hathote in the article and as noted below there's caps here but anyway there's no consensus to move. –Davey2010Talk 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Source Code → Source Code (film) "Source Code" should redirect to "source code". 31.52.4.146 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose per the two previous move requests. SSTflyer 15:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the previous requests. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous requests. Source Code refers to the film itself. Revisit only if there is other notable media with the same name and if they are not a primary topic as with Cold Case. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous request. Capitals matter. Source Code refers to the movie. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Source_Code/Archive_1&oldid=1200949693"