Talk:Unbreakable (film)

message: Freedom For The Slaves Along With The Help With The Self Freed Slaves
Special Notice Eight Sense
Director Its Time To Find Elijah ? Price The Only One Who Has Unbreakable Breaking Ability
Two Extraordinary Survivors
John Rejected Ruin
Onik John Torosian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.94.42 (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: It seems like the ending suggests that the movie is based on a true story. When the hero walks away from Mr. Glass at the end of the movies, two blocks of text are blended into the scene:
"David Dunn led authorities to Limited Edition where evidence of three acts of terrorism was found."
"Elijah Price is now in an institution for the criminally insane."
I googled for the story, but didn't find anything of substance. Due to the outragousness of the proposed crime and the popularity of the movie, it seems unlikely that nobody would have built a fanpage on the topic. Another possibility I thought of, is that the movie is based on a comic book, that has the same ending or even continues the story..
It be interesting to have something about this in the article.
It's based on the comic book and I think it leaves to the imagination that the nefarious criminal can somehow escape or can operate from the confines of the criminally insane institution. It seemed to be a nice way of saying, "to be continued".
As a side note, I noticed on the bus that it said something to the effect of "the people know something you don't know" and that there was a blue handicap logo on the front of the bus. Made me wonder, does the blue of Mr. Glass represent being handicapped. 
--212.99.193.74 21:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never taken it as based on anything.  The ending just explains what happened to the characters in readiness for the forthcoming sequels (which are sadly not happening). violet/riga (t) 22:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Titanic??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending 

message: Hmm. This is not a great wuality writeup. Ive tried to fix some but it relaly needs work. It doesnt even mention David's son?
Yeah.  and the seplling is awufl.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.166.67 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: Someone keeps changing the line that "David then kills the maniac" to "David chokes out the maniac". "Chokes out" sounds like he just renders him unconcious, but David definitely kills him. The newspaper he shows his son at the end of the film says "3 dead" (father, mother and home invader") and, if you have a zoom feature on your DVD player or a high-def screen, you can clearly read in the article that says, roughly, "upon freeing the children, the unknown samaritan struggled with the invader, killing him." In addition, the shooting script makes it clear that the invader is killed. I don't know the motivation for this constant change, but I'll assume it's not to try to hide that David is a killer, but that the person wants to make it clear that choking was the manner of death, so I've changed it to "David then chokes the maniac to death". - dharmabum 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Retarded or not, "chokes out" is the common term for the technique (most famously found in Judo) of applying strong pressure to both sides of the neck, which cuts off the flow of blood to the brain, leading to weakness, disorientation, and unconsciousness.  The technique is non-lethal (unless maintained for 5+ minutes?), and the symptoms usually disappear in a matter of seconds after the choke hold is released.  Choke holds do not usually involve cutting off the air supply, since this carries a risk of doing serious damage (collapsed trachea.)  I'm not disputing whether David killed the guy; I'm just clarifying that the term is valid and implies a non-lethal submission hold. --Lode Runner 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Accurate or not, it certainly sounds odd in the context of the article. It's suddenly using fairly specific terminology that most people wouldn't know, and if you *don't* know it (as I'd argue most people won't) it sounds ridiculous rather than an unfamiliar term. It's a bad use of language in the article. I'd also question if it's accurate - is that really what David does in the film? Tim 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's *that* obscure--it's a simple adaptation of the phrase "knocked out".  And what's the alternative?  "Applied a choke hold until the intruder was incapacitated"? That wording sounds much more ridiculous to me.  If he actually was choked out (I'm NOT saying that he was or wasn't.  I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I can't comment either way), then that's what the article should say, perhaps with a link to chokehold to clarify the meaning of the term.  Of course, since I have no reason to doubt Dharmabum420's observations this is likely a moot point; nevertheless, I do take issue with people attacking the term itself.  There's no other verb that describes the successful application of a non-lethal choke hold (verbs like "strangle" strongly imply a fatal outcome.)  --Lode Runner 08:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How the intruder was killed is irrelevant, the important thing to note is that he was killed 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chokes out" instead of "kills" 

message: "David goes on to save more lives with his powers, although we are not shown exactly who he becomes." I didn't follow through with his life, only that he got Elijah Price committed.--Wikisermons 06:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Unless there will be some form of confirmation on the sequel titles, Unbeatable and Unstoppable, I think I'd be proper to delete them. It's terribly misleading, and I can find no evidence on the net that this, in any way, is true. If the poster who wrote this can't find a source to back it up, I will proceed to delete it if nothing shows up in 2 weeks. GofferOffer 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel speculation 

message: There are a number of points brought up in the plot section that seem to be wrong or repeated in other paragraphs in the same section.  I'm going to watch the film again and try to come back to this section; a full rewrite might be in order. Katalaveno 03:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section needs cleaning up 

message: Looking at the film and then drawing comparisons to comic book motifs is the definition of original research or original thought. "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source". I have removed the entire section "Comic book references" because of this. If there is some article out there that makes this comparison it should be cited... but you just can't cite your own comparisons. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Wikipedia:Attribution. 69.72.2.72 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quit. 71.203.244.64 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I have reverted the revert of my clean up because of the following problems. "Unbreakable drew universal praise from comic book writers/artists" and "cult film status" are WP:PEACOCK and are only supported by the opinion of Scott Brown and Casey Seijas and "cult film status" is not supported at all by the Casey Seijas cite (WP:V).  In general these editorial pieces cannot be used for statement of fact WP:RELY. Implying that movie was successful during its opening run has no supporting citation and the math is against it being a success ($66.3 million or the total $95 million GROSS domestic run on a $75 million film is definitely not a success or even break even during the opening run, such things are measured in NET, not GROSS) (WP:V, WP:NPOV).
The Sequels section only documents internet/film fan site rumors, and maybe some hype by Shyamalan. Shyamalan himself states he did not plan a sequel. It has been rewritten to better reflect the sources provided and clearly reflect who said what. The section should reflect what the sources say, and not be about some supposed sequel supported by citation synthesis. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and general citation problems 

message: I made a section for TV appearances. If anybody knows any other TV appearances Unbreakable has been on, please add to the section. Mackerni888 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Movies are shown on different television stations all the time.  That a certain film airs on a certain channel isn't particularly noteworthy.  Sorry, but I've removed the section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Appearances 

message: In the proposed sequel section it mentions quite a few times that Disney was not interested in making a sequel because the film performed poorly at the box office. But elsewhere it says the film grossed 248 million. That's a lot, especially against a 75m budget. Does anyone know if this was mostly DVD sales and could research and reference it to reconcile the facts? Or if there is another reason Disney didn't want to produce the sequel? JesseRafe (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. There is a complete and jarring inconsistency between the two sections. No one has addressed this since 2011? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  250 million not good enough box office/revenue? Inconsistency with Gross and Sequel discussions 

message: Why does the first paragraph contain spoilers? There is no need to describe Elijah as "manipulative," and it's also unnecessary to say that Dunn "learns the true nature of Elijah Price." Could you please remove these notes from the first paragraph, and only include it under the chapter "Plot"? 2601:405:100:E440:2DEB:1739:E537:A03C (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These are plot elements that can be placed in the lead. Wikipedia does not bow to attempts to censor its spoilers. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

text: By the way, the documentation of  says clearly: "For any change that might be controversial, obtain consensus before placing the template". You ignored this in yet another attempt to censor Wikipedia, which fact is duly noted. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017 

message: Please do not include references to the Split cameo and connections in the opening paragraph. Wikipedia generally does not approve of spoilers in the overview sections of films. - Darkhawk
: , Read WP:SPOILER. DarkKnight2149 21:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers in Intro 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Unbreakable (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115075126/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/18/samuel-l-jackson-m-night-shyamalan-on-the-unbreakable-sequel-that-never-was-but-might-be/ to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/18/samuel-l-jackson-m-night-shyamalan-on-the-unbreakable-sequel-that-never-was-but-might-be/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425235248/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/02/22/bruce-willis-says-m-night-shyamalan-still-thinking-about-unbreakable-2/ to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/02/22/bruce-willis-says-m-night-shyamalan-still-thinking-about-unbreakable-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where it says who Samuel L Jackson played in the film. It pretty much tells you the ending. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindfoam (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. An encyclopedia article on a film will likely tell you all about Luke's father, Rosebud and Keyser Söze. They'll also tell you Jesus comes back to life and the Titanic sinks. Please see WP:SPOILER. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler in Cast section