Talk:The Host (2006 film)

message: I haven't seen any sources that list the actress as Go Ah-Sung. 
Many list her as Ko Ah-Sung, or Ah-Sung Ko.
I'll change it back unless someone can point to a viable source.--Joel Lindley 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Go Ah-Sung

message: I'm going to reword the bit about the impact of the dumping incidents.  As far as I can tell, there are no sources for the following claims, which may in fact be not true:
* 59 bases were returned to Korea.  The citation only states that there are ongoing talks to do so.
* Toxic wastes covered up by cement.  Unsourced, and may not be true, given that the above has not yet occurred.
* Great environmental problems.  It would be foolish to say that there was no impact at all, or that it did not negatively impact South Korean perception of the US presence.  However, "great" is a qualifier I think that is not warranted here.
John Sheu 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, USA fanboy!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.130.171 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing factually correct information is "fanboying"..? You know what, feel free to be an ignorant scum-bag liar. The rest of us use this site for actual information. 03:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  American military bases in Korea 

message: "In addition to its environmental impact, this has added some antagonism against the United States" -  What does this mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence unclear 

message: Anyone want to go over the plot summary (I hate writing them)? For one, it's about twice as long as it should be, and for another, it still only covers the first 20 minutes or so of the film. Scene by scene analysis really isn't necessary. - Bobet 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I totally agree, and am going to work on this today, since I've seen just seen the movie.  It goes into painful unnecessary detail about the first 5 minutes, and then drops off to nothing after that.  I'm going to have to weed out some of the less important stuff from the beginning (90% of it) and add more of the major plot points following that. Also, I am taking out the part about the man who committed suicide "presumably" being turned into the monster, as this isn't supported by the plot at all (in the following scene you see them fishing his body out of the river).  Please improve mine as you see fit also. Great movie... WETA did an excellent job. --64.253.48.73 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ok, finished this, but it's still on the long side. I can't really condense it more without losing what I feel are important plot points, though, so I'll leave it. I did cut down the over-detailed opening scenes, though, and just stuck to important developments. Hopefully the article can be re-rated at some point? --64.253.48.73 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Removed plenty more extraneous details, but it could still use another set of eyes to pair it down even more.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.96.107 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot summary 

message: If someone feels like it, maybe there should be a section added about the "cryptidtruth" (youtube) and "thinginthewater" video and photo viral marketing campaign for this movie going on right now.  It's traceable back to www.mosterhunterclub.com. Gh05t 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viral Marketing Campaign 

message: * I rewrote the plot summary, per my comment above; it now encompasses the entire movie instead of focusing on extraneous details from just the first 5 minutes.  I did have two questions, though--what was the point in the suicide scene?  As my comment above noted, I don't thnk that man was meant to be what transformed into the monster (would not make any sense with the fisherman/small mutant scene, also they show his body being pulled out of the Han in a bodybag on the news).  Was this just metaphorical?  Also, was the American Donald that was a hero in the beginning the same Donald who was a US soldier on the news who "fought heroically against the monster"?  I thought so at first, but having rewatched that scene, it looked like the first Donald was being eaten when Gang-Du smashed the signpost on the monster's tail, and not like he got away with just an arm amputated. --64.253.48.73 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suicide scene is just a bit of foreshadowing that there's something unusual in the river, AFAIK.  And yes, the Donald is the same one.  There's no other American in the film that we see fight the monster.  Although in the process of being chewed on, Gang-Du interrupted IIRC.  Geoff B 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with the foreshadowing idea, but I still wonder about Donald being the same one (it could have been another off-screen Donald).  We see the monster swallowing a man in the scene following the street sign.  Also, that Donald had dyed hair, and that's not allowed in the US Army (of which I am a member). --64.253.48.73 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * The thing is, the Korean Army has even stricter standards... there's no way someone with bright, half-blond hair would keep it.  But yeah, I guess anything's possible, and the filmmaker just didn't care. --64.253.48.73 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two small continuity questions

message: how does gangdu know which tunnel hyun-seo is in? is it because nam-il sent an email to both nam-joo and gangdu? I just dont remember him checking his phone, but it seems plausible that the director just assumed the audience would make the assumption.
After Nam-Joo gets the text message, she calls Gang-Du at the quarantine center because she couldn't reach Nam-Il.  That's how he knew which bridge his daughter was under.76.64.188.144 03:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: one small continuity question

message: I removed this uncited clause (", though the injections also included inoculation against blood-sucking tapeworms that inhabit the sewers") because it makes no sense (tapeworms aren't free-living sewer-dwelling blood-suckers) -- however, it's possible something related to the statement did happen.  Citation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iayork (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation available?

message: I wonder why they didn't make a film about North Korea's nuclear test causing a monster, instead of making a big deal about a little formeldahyde. --Scorpionman (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: :Image:C9841-01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:C9841-01.jpg

message: What do you have to say about this? http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=50659 24.76.185.79 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Remake

message: Where the grandpa, the uncle, the aunt, and the father stop in their own snack food shop for some food and rest--and while they're eating, the daughter appears all of a sudden and they wordlessly share their food with her? As far as I can tell, there's no other hallucination or dream sequence in the rest of the movie, and I was quite baffled at this point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.76.147 (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for the hallucination/dream scene? 

message: Is there any reason as to how the family didn't suffer the same fate as the rest of the people in the area when the Yellow gas went off, at least those without the proper protection. I mean the couching up blood and dying, which seemed to have effect everyone withing moments of its release. Yes it'd be a bit of a flop if the main characters suddenly died like this, but it would help if this irrationality had been explained a little.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.200.52 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellow gas

message: I think the romanization of the title "괴물" should be "goemul" instead of gwoemul, or am I wrong? --Christian140 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanization of 괴물