|WikiProject Novels||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Children's literature||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Herod Sayle's Intentions
As far as I (when) can understand from the movie, Sayle's intentions for the biological virus was to kill all the schoolchildren (not even taking into account that children would be born to replace them anyway). Now, I'm not quite sure, but was there another meaning behind this? I can't quite remember myself.
I thought that Sayle was also developing an anti-virus, which would be used as a selling product, of course, made by Sayle Enterprises, so that Sayle could become even richer by deliberately forcing all the parents of the children who have been infected to buy the anti-virus from Sayle.
Does anyone else agree with me? I can't quite remember if this was mentioned in the book, and after breifly looking over it again, I couldn't find any evidence of this secondary intention.
Does this mean I'm getting mixed up with movies like Mission Impossible 2 and Resident Evil? --rjcuk 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never heard of such a thing in the book O.O
I doubt he'd bother, since:
- He's already plenty rich
- It would intefere with his revenge on British schoolchildren
- How would Sayle get the vaccine so quickly? The public would get suspicious, and the British government would be forced to start asking questions and probe around.
- Regardless, (IIRC) Sayle planned to leave Britain as soon as the smallpox release was triggered, so that rules out the anti-virus theory. - KingRaptor 06:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
mm 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC) 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)) I have read the book 'Stormbreaker' many, many times and I am absolutely positive that it didn't mention anything about an anti-virus being created by Herod Sayle. The movie didn't mention anything about an anti-virus being created. You are probably thinking of something else. Next time you edit Wikipedia, you should know better.
There are currently two plot synopses. I would like to delete the second, longer one.
The reasons being, firstly, I don't like spoilers. Yes, I know it should be obvious that if you read a section entitled plot there will be spoilers, but some people can't help themselves, and other people expect spoilers to be marked. Secondly, I don't see the point in having a long, detailed plot synopsis of this book. If it were a Shakespeare play or a novel by Dickens or something else that people have to study, then there are people to whom having a complete plot synopsis is useful. But who is this plot synopsis useful to? No-one, as far as I can see. And thirdly, there are two plot synopses! Isn't that one too many?
So, does anyone have any objections? Akiyama 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really two plot summaries - I don't think that the official publisher information is really sufficient for this book. For instance, it doesn't reveal very much of what happens, or give us the ending. But I'll agree that the extended one is too long - so something in between the "two" would be good (however, don't just delete it all).
And isn't it possible to add a "spoiler's warning?" as well? :)
DarthSidious 02:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
- Wikipedia's manual of style says plot summary sections are not to have spoiler tags. Also, "usefulness" of information is not a guideline as to whether content should be included in an article. - KingRaptor 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is getting vandalised a lot. I think it should get semi-protected. I dont think anyone will ever read this but i dont know where else to put it.--Spongefrog 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongefrog (talk • contribs)
I have no experience with WP, I'm aware that this violates talk page guidelines, and I doubt anyone strong-willed would pay any attention to this "post". If I'm being annoying, delete this post - I don't care.
Anyway, my point is
STOP THE VANDALISM ALREADY!
(If you're anything close to a perfectionist you'll hate me for abusing headings...again, I don't care.
In a nutshell...stop the vandalism
And again: Quit vandalizing this article (and why not stop vandalizing all the other perfectly good articles too!)