Talk:The Bourne Ultimatum (film)/Archive 1

message: how come i can't get to the book's page o_o 71.86.66.86 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: My memory of it is shaky, and maybe the geography couldn't possibly work out, AND it's been a while since I've seen Identity...but wasn't the coffee shop where Bourne and Nicky stopped in Ultimatum (when Bourne asks Nicky why she's helping him) the same as the one he stopped at with Marie in Identity (where he made the "catching the sightlines and looking for an exit" speech)? If so, that should obviously go in the "References to Previous Films" section. But it's probably not. Anyone want to confirm/deny this? 70.187.178.134 11:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, but I don't think they're the same place. I noticed that it was oddly similar looking, though. I think it was just part of them trying to hint that Bourne and Parsons used to be together. They did it in two ways - one was Parsons almost explicitly (but not quite) saying so, and the other was the parallelism in certain scenes - the restaurant, the cutting of hair. Admit it, you thought Bourne was gonna do her on the spot.  I'm kind of glad they didn't though, it would've reeked of "cheap plot device" if they took it that far. Riskbreaker927 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got to save a little something for The Bourne Legacy and The Bourne Betrayal. ColdFusion650 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same coffee shop? 

message: For the response section, shouldn't we use a more well-known and credible source such as Ebert and Roeper? Not that it matters much, but RottenTomatoes.com just doesn't have that official ring to it. --D 12:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rottentomatoes is a credible summary of responses. It would be fine to have specific comments from individual reviewers, but only including that without aggregate data could easily give misperceptions of true response to a film. When it comes to aggregate data on movie reviews, there is probably nothing more official than rottentomatoes.Gwynand 14:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gwynand since RottenTomatoes is credible. But yes, "Response" needs more variety. Publications like The NY Times, the LA Times, Chicago-Sun Times, and TIME Magazine would be good places to find critical response to the film. Cliff smith 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response Section

message: While images can be good, the third one where Bourne closes in on Desh is a bit of a spoiler. Cliff smith 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoilers don't matter, especially in a plot section. However, there are way too many images in there. Hopefully, someone with less of a deletionist eye should do it, cause you don't me to start removing stuff. ColdFusion650 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's enough images in here for now, I believe. As I said when I was talking about the plot, the article will greatly improve once the hype dies down. Cliff smith 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I took some photos of the shoot at Waterloo - if you want to use any of them in the future, then just download them from http://www.flickr.com/photos/ambrose/sets/72157594473177022/ Icerve 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the production section, right? ColdFusion650 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The official website could probably be used to add to and reference the production section. Cliff smith 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Production

message: Shouldn't Marie appear on the cast list, as she most definitely shows up prominently in the film, even if they're clips from the previous two films? I did notice that she is not credited in the film itself, or at IMDB... 132.205.44.5 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If she's not credited in the film, and it's only flashback footage from the previous films, I would say she doesn't belong on the list. ColdFusion650 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marie/Franka Potente 

message: I know that everybody wants through their thing into the plot section, but the plot doesn't usually get overly long at one time. It gets that way a few sentences at a time. For example, this short plot became this juggernaut, a few sentences at a time. (Note: I did not add the overly long plot tag.) So, please be careful when extending the plot. The details should be absolutely necessary to understanding the plot. ColdFusion650 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current plot is 803 words, and WP:MOSFILMS says it should be 500-700. So, if you want to work on the plot, please help trim it down some more. ColdFusion650 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine as is. The ultimate limit is 900, so it doesn't need to be any shorter since the plot is fairly complicated. Cliff smith 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work people. We found a way to get it down around the 700 butter zone. Rest up. In the morning, the cabal moves on to the town, like a Mongol horde we go. ColdFusion650 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Plot Details 

message: As far as I can remember, the only hint at a relationship between Nicky and Bourne is a look across a table that some people interpret to mean a relationship. This personal interpretation is textbook original research. What if that look is my "I need a refill on this Coke" face? Then, my personal interpretation would that Nicky wanted Bourne to flag down the waitress. They were in a restaurant after all. So you see, without something like a DVD commentary to get inside the heads of the filmmakers, we really can't know, and we can't speculate. ColdFusion650 11:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only other clue is when Nicky said something along the lines of things being difficult with him.  Joshdboz 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that's easily explained away by the multiple drownings it took to get him to kill that guy. He was strong willed and didn't break easily. ColdFusion650 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so you think that line was referring to Borune's initial training?  I thought it was Nicky talking about her former relationship with him. Joshdboz 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what he/she or anybody else thinks. This isn't a forum for discussion about the movie. Speculation about Nicky and Bourn's potential love history doesn't belong in the article since it falls under the heading of original research. Wisdom89 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Exactly my point. ColdFusion650 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said speculation belongs in this article.  But if hints at a previous relationship are deemed important in the plot,they should be included.  This certainly is a forum for disucssion about the movie in how it pertains to this article.  Joshdboz 10:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicky and Bourne have a past association, to which she refers. Association does not mean romance, it means that they knew each other and had at least a working relationship of some kind. It's part of the movie, it's in the dialogue, and this is not a matter of personal interpretation. The words "past association" do not imply romance, nor do they refer to anything that isn't in the dialogue of the film. This does not qualify as original research. ColdFusion, please remember that many people contribute to this entry. If there is a point of repeated dispute, could we discuss it and come to a compromise rather than engaging in an endless edit war. --74.121.50.59 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your argument is incorrect in its foundation; you are declaring that stating Bourne and Nicky had a past romance does not belong in the plot summary. The words "past association" do not imply romance at all. The question of WHY Nicky is helping Bourne is raised by Bourne, and her reply is that the answer lies in something before Bourne lost his memory. That's all the "past association" is meant to declare; there is nothing about romance. If reference to a romantic relationship between the two is something you want kept out, well, there is no such reference at all.--74.121.50.59 02:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, reread the first sentence. I wasn't talking solely about a romantic relationship. I said "Nothing in the dialog talks about her causes for helping him." That includes anything in their past. You say that she replies to Bourne. She doesn't. All she does is give a look. Nothing is stated, about anything. You need to see the movie again, and take notes. Now, I've already reverted this 3 times today, for now it will have to stay unless another editor comes along to fix it, but it is not permanent. ColdFusion650 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I get the feeling that using the phrase "past association" is circumvention and just a method for integrating into the article something which a majority of moviegoers have interpreted? It still smacks of OR and doesn't belong. Wisdom89 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That much is explicitly stated. ColdFusion650 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicky and Bourne 

message: I know I've said this five times before in edit summaries, but when updating information from a source, update the accessdate on the ref tag. This indicates which date the information is up-to-date to. This is the only way it can be accurate. It seems that since the addition of the refs, no one updating information has been changing the accessdates. Please start doing so. ColdFusion650 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody care about accessdates? I still seem to be the only one. Please update the accessdate when updating the daily gross. ColdFusion650 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref accessdates 

message: Could we possibly have a spoiler notice put in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.9.149 (talk • contribs) 16:54, August 14, 2007 (CDT)
:No. It's not needed. Spoiler tags are on the way out and should only be used in extreme cases of spoilers in articles where you would not expect them. ColdFusion650 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tag 

message: Is this movie actually an interquel to The Bourne Supremacy rather than a true sequel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.50 (talk • contribs) 18:18, August 15, 2007 (CDT)
:That would be a technical maybe. Here's the thing. The ending sequence of Supremacy is a few seconds long. Does that few seconds really qualify Ultimatum as an interquel? Second, Ultimatum does not take place completely during Supremacy. The first 1/2-3/4 does, but the part at the training facility does not take place during it. Third, every source I've seen calls Ultimatum a sequel. Therefore, under a very strict interpretation of the original research policy, we can't call it an interquel without a source. So, I would say sequel is fine. ColdFusion650 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interquel 

message: Information appropriately categorized cannot be called irrelevant.  Many film pages contain trivia, and props usually fall into that category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.48.240 (talk) 06:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:According to the Manual of Style "[Trivia] sections should not be categorically removed..."  I've noticed this keeps happening.  Further suggested in the Manual of Style is the inclusion of facts into the main sections of the article.  I've read the gun trivia and checked it.  It's plain to see that gun is in the movie.  I suggest it be integrated into the plot section rather than be removed.69.140.33.146 07:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's not important enough to be included in the plot. It can't be in it's own trivia section. If you can find a way to include it, that's fine. ColdFusion650 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Is this correct "Deputy Director Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) is brought in to help capture Bourne" my understanding was that Landy was brought in so they could scapegoat her if things went wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was later revealed too. So it's both.--Svetovid 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I always thought Kramer put her there to serve as a counterweight to Vosen Masterblooregard 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: This is pretty minor, but in the scene where Landy is flipping through Bourne's files after he's been "killed" by Desh, a profile of his Neski mission comes up, the very document that Nicki claimed not to exist in Supremacy Masterblooregard 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vladmir Neski plothole