Talk:The Happening (2008 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Mention UTV who paid for 50% of the film. Source: > UTV Motion Pictures


Undid some dumb vandalism, better watch this page. -XClaudiox (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too...-Saltyseawater (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


I know this is WIKIPEDIA and so nobody who wants to stay clueless re. surprises in films should expect to remain that way after visiting here, but how about ONLY including in the article stuff that is revealed in publicly-available common media, i.e. pre-release just the TRAILER! The "3 stages" is *not* in the trailer, it must be from other pre-release communications. Actually it is in some trailers and not in others depends which one you see, there's also a red banner one that shows some of the methods people kill themselves by. Ditto for the "plants" element, as mentioned in the Shyamalan article. Again, I know this is an "encyclopedia", but a lot of this kind of "unrevealed to most people" info presented on these 2 pages is not cited, and is either a) crap that somebody made up, or b) real factual info that should not be revealed to moviegoers who don't expect to see it on the encyclopedia article BEFORE the movie has even been released! Yeesh, it's like for Cloverfield, saying that all the characters die in the end, or the monster lives ... if the Wikipedia article mentioned all this BEFORE the movie came out. :sigh: IMDB is way worse, in this case, but at least there's a Spoiler Warning on the link before it's all in front of your eyes... (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a page about a movie so use common sense and expect spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:45, May 30, 2008

The plant thing is a major spoiler that gives away the film's primary surprise. Generally speaking, when a phrase begins with "It turns out", that is a spoiler. Lots of people would just come here to get links, reviews, general synopsis, etc. They don't expect to see the full plot of a movie that has yet to be released. --Vcalzone (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • i'm always under the mind set that reviews and the like could be found in newspapers or other movie web sites, an encyclopedia page about a movie is bound to have the plot. it actually really should. encyclopedia and all. spoilers is the risk you run on this site and —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The section is titled plot, so the entire plot should be listed. At worst, just point a spoiler warning at the top of the article. There's a template for it, but I don't remember what it is exactly. If that's not enough for someone to figure it out, then they deserve to have the plot ruined for them. (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No there's not, spoiler templates were deleted because this is an encyclopedia. If you come to an encyclopedia to learn about a movie, common sense dictates that there will be plot information. Q T C 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


why no mention the final stage is people committing suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:13, June 3, 2008

I added that.--Patrick (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats all well and dandy, but what no one is saying is WHY people are killing themselves. It has to do with the toxin shutting down the part of our brain that stops us from harming ourselves. This causes

1. freezing- people stop moving, then take a few steps back 2. confusion- people restate something they already asked 3. death- the person commits suicide without a second thought and without fear.

Just want to know if its okay if we add this. Darthan the destroyer (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I kind of want to point something out. Technically no one is committing suicide. They are killing themselves against their own normal will. They are infact being forced to kill themselves which would be the fault of the plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdentityS (talkcontribs) 08:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


I have removed the section 'plot' as it has been vandalized several times. Can somebody recreate this section with the relevant details? Chamal (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The current quote "in order to survive while the world goes into a violent whirlwind of self destruction" would be more accurate if it just said "in order to survive" (I have seen the film). Bingggo (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Funniest film of the year![edit]

BBC Radio 4's Front Row programme reviewed the happening during its june 10th broadcast, reactions were not exactly positive, with lawson describing the film as "more cock than hitchcock" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

move to lock the page[edit]

I really think this page should be locked for a bit. It's unreleased so the spoilers should be left out til thenStuthomas4 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

umm no. Darthan the destroyer (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


There is a mistake, the film will only bear the french name in the french-speaking part of belgium. In the dutch speaking part of belgium it is just 'The Happening' Would be great if sombody veryfied that and changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I recommend implementing reviews from film critics that are published in newspapers and magazines, which generally have wide circulation. I discourage reviews that only exist on websites as they may not have the best credibility. A good rule of thumb is that if the work or its publisher has a Wikipedia article that has been around a while, then it's appropriate to use reviews from these works. I would also suggest expanding on the reviews from the Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Newsday. Saying that these reviews gave the film two stars does not seem enough; the reasoning should be provided for the sake of clarity. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a suggested reversion to the early reviews discussion re Cinephilia and The Age. One of the Cinephilia writers is credited on the AFCA site as secretary. I agree that whoever posted the other reviews could have expanded them, but I didn't have time other than to draw out a point from Hunters re the cinematographer. Bingggo (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if Cinephilia is appropriate. It is not widely published, like many alternatives under Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics. I would recommend only adhering to website reviews if there weren't any widely-published reviews. For a film like The Happening, it's not going to be the case, so we should draw upon reviews from reputable newspapers and magazines. In this case, The Age would be fine, but I'm not sure about Cinephilia. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but how can a website not be widely published? As far as I know, Rotten Tomatoes stopped accepting even established critics years ago, which explains why Cinephilia isn't there. In general, non-USA review sites will be less well represented in international associations such as the Online Film Critics Association, as they just haven't got their act together yet - doesn't mean they're not reputable in their own country :) In terms of reliability, it's run by Bernard Hemingway who is also a member of the Australian Film Critics Association ( Many films on wikipedia develop quite lengthy critical reception sections as more people contribute, so I imagine over time this will be the case for The Happening, and any issues re the representative nature of the included reviewers will be addressed. I just posted a sample of the reputable ones I'm familiar with at a time when there was no 'critical reception' section at all, but can add some more (eg. Urban Cinefile's low-star review) if you think it would help. Bingggo (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the wide circulation of a major publication like newspapers and magazines. The reviews published in these are seen by many, many people, as opposed to reviews only found on websites. In addition, these reviews that are published by major organizations are more reputable. Who would have more credentials at face value -- Joe Blog review or New York Times review? I'm not saying Cinephilia is Joe Blog, but it falls closer to that one than it does New York Times. I just think that there is bound to be more than enough reviews for The Happening found in the newspapers and magazines that we don't need to be dropping a notch and relying on website reviews like Cinephilia. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly sure about credibility of Cinephilia. However I'd say that simply because there's no Critical reception section you should add one. At least at WP:MOSFILM, the reviewers from Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are recognized and I believe we should primarily stick to that. It's a film originated and widely released in United States and the criticism from US is considered primary here. Not to mention the fact that those critics are far more established and well recognized.
In any case, the film is just about to release, and in next few days there would be more reviews coming in. So let's just wait until then until adding any reviews. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the posts above, but while I don't think criticism from the US is the primary or well-recognised source internationally (as most people outside the US will never have heard of Hunter, for example, whereas most film-goers in Australia will have heard of Hawker, and a fair number of Cinephilia) I agree that this issue will solve itself with more additions by posters with the time to do so. Until then, members of the Australian Film Critics Association, a FIPRESCI-accredited peak body, has credibility in my opinion. Bingggo (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You have to remember that this is an American production, so American reviews would be more centric to this film than other kinds of reviews. If this was a British or Australian production, then reviews from these territories would be more centric. (Unfortunately, this isn't always the case since there is a little bit of systemic bias toward America.) I was referring to the reputation of major publications, not the individuals themselves. In the case of Australia, Cinephilia would be better off covering Australian productions. I agree that we should see about adding other reviews, but if we were to include an Australian review, The Age would be appropriate to cite. Only if we were desperate for reviews (which isn't the case for this undoubtedly widespread film) would we need to draw upon Cinephilia. I'm not trying to bash the website, but in my editing, I've seen a lot of attempts for including website reviews where there are much less disputable alternatives. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't Ebert's review mentioned, his was one of the few positive reviews, and seeing as how he's the most famous critic in America, it would probably be a better example than one from Cinephilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmwalles (talkcontribs) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate those who've been around a lot longer than me, doing very fine work on film pages here, but unless there's a strange official policy that reviewers should predominantly come from the country the film is shot in (as I note The Happening is a USA/India coproduction, yet there is no mention that Indian reviewers should be highlighted) then I think verifiable, reliable reviewers from outside the USA are clearly relevant. Otherwise, there is a very strange USA-centrism going on. If the film had been shot in Australia, why shouldn't Ebert review it, for example.So I reinstated elements of the early critical reception section that were deleted without explanation. Bingggo (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above on the guideline (not policy) on writing a film article, given in WP:MOSFILM recommends only the well-recognized reviewers, particularly those used by RT or Metacritic. I don't see as an intended US-centrism. However, you must consider the fact that US is the main market for this movie, and hence the reception in this country is of primary importance. This does not in anyway say that any other review written for this worldwide released movie is unimportant.
Next, just because a film is shot at a particular location or co-produced by certain foreign studio/company does not make any difference. It's the content of the movie that's being criticized. Of course, if the film does deal with any local content or topic, then the reception by local critics should be considered. Otherwise, I don't see any reason why Indian reviews should be considered.
I didn't remove your content until I had other reviews at my hand. However, since now we have more than sufficient recognized reviews, I'd like to know a valid reason (nothing related to location-centric) why you propose to keep these reviews. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue I'm having difficulty with in this discussion is that I'm following WP:MOSFILM, and the idea that if you're not on RT or MC then you shouldn't be quoted on Wikipedia is clearly not what it says. For example, I created the Critical Reception area when there was none and posted 3 reviews that I had to hand which accorded with the WP:MOSFILM criteria, being from 'professional or well-known film reviewers' (WP:MOSFILM). That is, two reviews from a site operated by an Australian Film Critics Association member (one being from the Secretary of AFCA), and one review from Australia's leading print newspaper and also a member of AFCA and recognised by RT ( AFCA is one of the national film critic bodies recognised by FIPRESCI, the international federation of professional film critics and film journalists. WP:MOSFILM does not say 'particularly those used by RT or Metacritic', it says '...also useful are... RT and Metacritic which collect professional film reviews.' As I gather RT closed its doors some years ago to even established critics, it is obviously no longer (if ever) the final benchmark of professional recognition in film criticism. FIPRESCI is.
The second issue I'm having difficulty with is the idea that reviews on Wikipedia should be market driven, particularly where a huge number of films of equal relevance to non-USA countries, increasingly released simultaneously or even earlier in non-USA countries, will have their views disenfranchised because the film is getting bigger box-office in the USA. As you say, where the film is shot does not make any difference. And to me, the Happening's content is equally relevant to any country, particularly Western 'developed' industrial nations; and any 'professional or well-known' film reviewer from those countries can be considered for inclusion in the representative mix of opinion in the Critical Reception. Taking another film at random of familiarity to me, The Piano, set in NZ around the turn of the 19th century, as a NZ/Australia/France co-production, Wikipedia only quotes one reviewer... Roger Ebert. And that's fine by me. It would also be fine if someone wanted to add a representative view from almost any other country in the world.
WP:MOSFILM explicitly addresses market issues differently in my view. It says 'In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success...' That is where market relevance might have sway, although it would still be of note if a film did spectacularly in one Western market and bombed in another, where the content was arguably relevant to both. Market success is frequently more about marketing rather than content quality :)
Therefore, I don't see any valid reason for deleting the reviewers in question, and I note I have trimmed them down from the original 3 to 2, given the inclusion of other reviewers since I first posted the content. I would agree it might be consistent with the balance of the section to delete a further review (Paterson's), but would like to stress this is because Hawker is better known (not because she's on RT and Paterson isn't).
Finally, it's interesting to note that there has been an assumption that because Hawker is an Australian film reviewer, she wouldn't be on RT. Bingggo (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should let the reviews remain. However you should consider couple of things in your argument's light.
It'd be quite difficult to present worldwide view under critical reaction, particularly if you take into consideration number of reviews from each country (it doesn't matter whether it's developed or otherwise) with significant release of the movie. There's a possibility that some editors might enter reviews from other such countries making the section excessively large and not concise. Like you said earlier, some might feel a need of a review from India, considering its relation with the film. Each country would always have its own set of well-recognized reviewers.
As for FIPRESCI, its an association of film critics and stands as professional recognition, whereas RT and MC consider a critic's recognition by the reader and with respect with other reviewers. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Reviews are mentioned here to depict how the "market" - which is spread across multiple nations - have reacted to the movie. If the reviewers' view, regardless of which country they write in, is consistent with the reviewers in other countries, I do not think there is any need to mention any reviews from that country. Its the views that are being highlighted here, not the persons who hold the view. If the reviewers in India would perceive the movie in a vastly different light than the reviewers listed here, it might merit inclusion. But it happens that the response was largely average (the movie being rated 2/3 stars out of 5 in the major publications) - and from first hand experience, in the show I went to, when it ended people were only talking of how bad it is. So the reviews listed more or less sums up the viewpoints in India. No local reviews need to be added to depict that. --soum talk 07:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think my comment on India was misread :) Someone said it was a US film so should be US-reviewed. I said it was only shot in the US, and was actually a US/India production, ie. implying that logic didn't really work for me. I didn't mean I thought we really needed an Indian review :) Anyway, I think we've all moved on, so all's good. I totally agree reviews should reflect the market spread across nations. But anyway, I think we're all in vigorous agreement now :) Bingggo (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


I think that once this page has been unlocked that someone should type the whole movie plot. One of the sole reasons i use wikipedia is to find out what happens in films that i did not want to see and to prevent this from being allowed to happen annoys me. This movie came out in australia today (friday 13th June) so i came to this page to see what happened in the film and now i see that it is locked, this frustrates me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was locked because of vandalism. I would encourage you to register an account so you can edit this article and perhaps future articles. :) —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added key information, as preventing such information is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Spoiler. Oddly enough, this same information (the plants are causing it) had been added on several other occasions over the past months, but was not cited. --Bobak (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, since the film has come out I've unlocked the page. I am aware of the Wikipedia:Spoiler terms but I felt that for a film that hadn't opened yet it was outside the bounds of that guideline. Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the template doesn't unlock the page; only administrators can perform that action. Also, the protection history indicates that it was locked for vandalism reasons, not for legitimate spoiler additions. Nufy8 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting then that I was able to perform the initial lock...oversetpped the bounds a bit then. Stuthomas4 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You added the template, but that did nothing in terms of actual protection. Tanthalas39 performed the protection but forgot to add the template. Anyway, it'll expire shortly. Nufy8 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4: regarding your edit at 22:02, 13 June 2008: "never saw "math" as a plural before. My guess is NOT". Both 'math' and 'maths' are acceptable words, see the end of the Etymology section here: Mathematics - Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I'll admit the comment was a tad...snotty...but it's an American film, with American actors therefore Wahlberg's character would have used "math" so it seems more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talkcontribs) 01:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone mention that the theatrical version of the film is heavily cut and doesn't actually show any of the deaths. Well dissapointing considering what the red band trailer and M.Night promised. Ruined the whole film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

dunno what version of the film they saw, but I recall: stabbing in neck, mangled bodies from jumping of a building, slit wrists from glass, run over by a lawn mower, eaten by lions, hanging, shot in head (with blood pulsing out of the entry wound), driving a jeep into a tree, piled bodies on a road, smashing head into wall then windows, and possibly a few other on screen deaths. All shown, some graphically so. Was thinking this was Faces of Death for a while. Gront (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the thing the film didn't show was the person bleeding out. Stabbing in neck didn't show a lot of blood, mainly the lion ripping off the guys arms and the lawnmower running over the guy was really blood filled. Darthan the destroyer (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Show to much blood and gore and we get a NC-17 or adult rating you can't have to much graphic violence because that isn't well liked in america.--Jakezing (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Saw the UK release the other week and after reading the comments here about the "red band" trailer I was intrigued so I checked on YouTube. They cut a lot of the graphic detail out of the version I saw - the start of the film cut before we actually see the girl stabbing herself, the part in the lion enclosure cut before we actually saw any dismemberment (the camera on the video seemed to move up as soon as the lions attacked); the part with Julian's suicide seemed to be shot from a much further distance than shown in the trailer; and as I recall there wasn't really much blood if any in the lawnmower part (although it did show it completely running over him). We do get the blood pulsing from the head wound, which is absent in the regular trailer though. Thepineapplehead (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the production page[edit]

I was reading over the page and i think the section under "Production" that says, "In January 2007, writer-director M. Night Shyamalan traveled from Philadelphia to Hollywood to prepare the live-action film based on Avatar: The Last Airbender. " should read out like this: "In January 2007, when writer-director M. Night Shyamalan traveled from Philadelphia to Hollywood to prepare the live-action film based on Avatar: The Last Airbender, Shyamalan submitted a spec script entitled The Green Effect to various studios, but none expressed enough interest to purchase the script." because the first way makes it sound like "The Happening" is based on "Avatar: The Last Airbender".

Just add the word "when" after "2007".

I think it reads better.

Thanks for reading.

Dude7324 (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. If nobody has a problem with this I'm going to change it. (Ok fixed it)Rosario lopez (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks! that sounds a lot better. Thanks for listening!

Dude7324 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Production Quirks[edit]

Does anything exist on the internet to explain the presence of a sound boom visible on screen in nearly every scene? Was this intentional, or was the editing really that bad? I really don't know how to take this film and I think clearing this issue up with help a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too! I'm assuming it's just crappy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I read around the internet that it's a common feature in his other films, particuluary The Village and Lady in the Water. I haven't seen The Village in years, and I didn't see the theatre version. I also didn't see Lady in the Water at all. Other websites mentioned the possiblity that it was a formatting error on the projectionist's fault. I think a letterbox was supposed to cut out the booms. If not, the film is too... Poorly done to be taken seriously, it seems. It's ridiculous that that many errors should get past editing. (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Those would definitely be formatting errors by the projectionist. Stuthomas4 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to the last comment - its the theatres job to frame the film correctly. Whenever you see boom mikes like that - yell at the theater. Dtolman (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A rumor exists that there are up to 4 different endings including the "shymalanian" twist being that indeed the "effect" is caused by an American biological nerve agent. Supposedly, the ending scene was to show uniformed people around a Boardroom table, and a male voice saying "the agent is confirmed as losing potency after 24 hours, and is approved for future use." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasvegastroy (talkcontribs) 05:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Just wondering, why do they commit suicide? Is it like,

  1. "Oh, that plant is making me feel so depressed! I'll commit suicide!"
  2. "What? Why am I holding a knife to my own throat? What?" or,
  3. "MUST.....COMMIT.....SUICIDE....."

I never got it. C Teng [talk] 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

its like the third version, only without talking Darthan the destroyer (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I say get the weedwacker and the John Deer out and show those plants who's boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who[edit]

It seems like there are a couple of references to Doctor Who in this movie. Is that worth noting? -Unknownwarrior33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What specifically did you think were Doctor Who references?--Skyraider (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark walshberg seemed like the doctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean up section[edit]

This sentence makes little sense to me: "Elliot, Alma, Jess, and two boys stay together, making their way towards an small enough community that they hope not to trigger a release of the toxin." It seems pretty convoluted with a missing verb and the article "an" used in fornt of a consonant. How about ""Elliot, Alma, Jess, and two boys stay together, making their way toward a community that they hope is so small that it will not trigger a release of the toxin." Alexandrothegreat (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another bad sentence with some sort of sentence fragment tacked on at the end: "Once Julian and the family reach Princeton, however, they find that the town has already been affected, many people hanging from trees." How about: "Once Julian and the family reach Princeton, however, they discover people hanging from trees, showing that the town has already been affected." Alexandrothegreat (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just fixed it myslef. Alexandrothegreat (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deaths and plot details[edit]

I have noticed that a lot of edits for this article were inclusions of unnecessary details, some of them detailing the methodology of suicides used in the film. I haven't got time at the moment but perhaps, it might be useful if I (or someone else who beats me to it) make a new section that describes just that: how people killed themselves.

I'm not sure though if it is of any academic interest or if it is even encyclopedic information in the first place. So... I'd like to know what you people think Salamangkero (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Did they ever show him? D.Mandalore (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Basis for the narrative[edit]

I rather suspect that the inspiration for this plot came from Saramago's "Blindness", about an mysterious pandemic of blindness that breaks out, quickly breaking down society and quite possibly threatening to end human life (or at least civilisation). It's true that "The Happening" is more violent and less cerebral than "Blindness", but that is what you'd expect from the American cinema.

"Blindness" is finally appearing in a movie version. Apparently 29th Century/Fox wanted a film to run against it.

Comments or verification?

--Philopedia (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to compare this one or Blindness. They really don't seem to be competitors -- The Happening is much more commercial than Blindness, and apocalyptic films are fairly common nowadays. There's the "infected" films, I Am Legend, Doomsday, et cetera. FEel free to dig up a reliable source, though. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, sounds like day of the triffids, what with the sudden unexplained blindness (ok, it was the meteor shower), though in that case plants are a menace after the breakdown of society, so there are parallels, sort of, almost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Misnomer - masses committing suicide[edit]

The first paragraph is misleading. If one person picks up someone else's gun, and uses it to shoot himself, and then another walks up, picks up the gun from the street, and repeats the same process, and the process continues until the gun is empty, that is not "committing suicide en masse" - rather, it is an unusual instance of many people committing suicide with whatever means is at their disposal. They are suiciding in sequence, rather than en masse. It's my understanding that en masse implies simultaneity, or at least a group effort towards a common end.
The first paragraph should be changed. It should not use the word "en masse" unless they all die simultaneously, rather than in sequence. By viewing the movie, you will see that each suicide was individually applied, towards an individual end. (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. Adding to or changing the mater complicates the text. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


A RiffTrax will soon be available for this movie. Will this be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Edits Made To "The Happening" Page[edit]

I just watched the movie "The Happening" just an hour or so ago and came on here to get some additional information and found that at a couple of points in the article, there is profanity and a general bashing of the film. The two incidents I noticed was the last paragraph under "Plot" and next to most of the cast members in the "Cast" section. I thought it should be brought to the attention of the Wikipedia Staff. Thank you.

Words Are Hard My Mouth Face (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the vandalism. In future, if you see such improper comments, feel free to revert them yourself. LeaveSleaves talk 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Review by Charlie Brooker[edit]

I recently put in a quote by Charlie Brooker about the film from his guardian column and referenced it to the following link - At the bottom of the column in what Charlie did this week is a relevant quote about the movie and Charlie is a respected reviewer. Yet it has been removed, why so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Brooker is a not a film critic. Moreover, that article isn't exactly a film review but just contains a single line from opinion of the columnist about the film. LeaveSleaves 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Why do Elliott and Alma have the same surname if she is just his girlfriend ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Edson[edit]

At the beginning of the movie when the policeman commits suicide, the man who picks up his gun is played by actor and former rocker, Richard Edson. I looked on the credits and I don't see his name anywhere. I wonder why they did'nt credit him for the role. I am 98% sure that this is Richard Edson. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

we know it was a toxin, but do we know it was the plants?[edit]

The "plants did it" has become part of the criticism of this movie, but that assumes that the quirky botanist's plant theory was meant to be correct. Eliot fits subsequent events into that theory. But they don't all fit, and the "happening" ends as inexplicably as it started. Maybe the point is, we take an unfamiliar event and try to explain it in terms of the familiar, resulting in a total misunderstanding of the event itself as well as its causes and implications, and our reaction to it. The happening was inexplicable. A character in the movie offered the plant theory, because that fit his background, botany. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference for production companies[edit]

I found a source that I'm pretty sure will probably satisfy you, NinjaRobotPirate. No offense but I'm getting really tired of having to find info on the production companies for this film that I've tried time and time again to prove to you they exist and it shouldn't have to be this way, you always deleting every single source that I find just because it's not reliable (how am I supposed to know they are?? I can't find a page that says they aren't and it's very unclear to use which part from where and what and everything else and it's so confusing). I've looked on the BFI, magazine websites and other sources, but you haven't budged and it's really irritating me. This source is from a book, so, here you go: [1]

I hope this is enough for you. I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude but I'm trying my best to prove something I'm pretty sure I shouldn't have to explain about. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Pick, edited by Anat; Narraway, Guinevere (2013). Screening nature : cinema beyond the human. p. 58. ISBN 1782382275. 
It has been explained multiple times to you. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. And I don't know what you want me to do with this citation. You haven't included a URL to Google Books or anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, here's the URL for the book:

And by the way, I really don't know why it has to be so complicated about adding these companies. If you look at a large image of the poster ( and see the logos and the credits for them (which are there), that's how I know the companies being part of it are true. I'm a newcomer to this whole thing and I just use logic and observation most of the time. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason is because of this: consensus that production companies require explicit sourcing. I've linked it to you several times already, and I'm beginning to wonder if you've even read it. Consensus is that you can't use posters to determine the production companies. This book doesn't label the production companies, either. It's just a list of companies, perhaps reproducing the poster's billing block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)