Talk:Payback (1999 film)

message: It'd be cool to find some background on the unique blue tint used throughout the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.55 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a bit late for this reply, but on the DVD 2000 release Mel Gibson said in his interview, they used a bleach by-pass process. Not sure what that is. Govvy (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe I wasn't that interested, besides, I added it in the article a while back! Govvy (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tint

message: Created the talk page, fixed up the plot, added the infobox.  The plot section could still use some work, and it would be better if there was a longer introduction.  -Parallel or Together? 04:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The description of the plot is wrong in several places (I just watched the first version). There is never any suggestion that Pearl (Lucy Liu) is the leader of the triads, but clearly she does know them. "Soon enough he is healed and armed" - in fact the events at the start of the film with Porter walking into the city centre are several months later as he mentions in the narration. The "wild chain of events" description is misleading, Porter sets out to get his money back and goes on a very direct route; the only (small) diversions are meeting up with his wife and crossing paths of 2 crooked cops. Kegon (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: I think a disambiguation page should be done for "Payback", as "Payback" also means a Investment Apraisal Method. --Pinnecco 17:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payback (finance) 

message: I just finished watching the Twilight Zone episode "The Jeopardy Room" and noticed a lot of similarities with the "Payback". Is this a coincidence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twilight Zone - "The Jeopardy Room" 

message: This section is not written in an academic tone, and their seems to be a strange obsession with gun models. To top it off, the gun information is inaccurate. A Smith and Wesson model 29, is NOT a .44 magnum. It is chambered in .38 special. Recommend deletion and rewrite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.155.137 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: I've got a DVD release from year 2000 and on it are short interviews with Mel Gibson, Maria Bello, Lucy Liu and James Coburn. I was wondering if that should be noted on the article or not. Also whats unique is it's a double sized DVD, side A is in Regular 1.33:1 res and side B has the film in Widescreen, 2.35:1 (97 min). Govvy (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can definitely cite the interviews, though I don't think that the DVD being double-sided is that unique. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD release from 2000 

message: Both IMDb and The Number estimate the production budget to $50 millions, and not $90 millions as BoxOfficeMojo do.--Ezzex (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It says $50m is an estimate so that doesn't really sugest it's accurate. I noticed boxofficemojo says it's owned by idmb, and idmb is owned by Amazon. So they should have the same data you would of thought... Govvy (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to IMDb the budget was $50 millions, not 90 millions 

message: This film may not inquire the most famous debate about cuts but it is certainly one of the more complex. If there is a synopsis on the article for this film, it is my honest opinion that both cuts should receive one each. TargaryenSquire96 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis