Talk:The Happening (2008 film)

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

message: 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... 199.214.26.41 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  spoilers? 

message: why no mention the final stage is people committing suicide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.49.22 (talk • contribs) 01:13, June 3, 2008
:I added that.--Patrick (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suicide 

message: 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)
thread_title: Plot

message: 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"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/past_programmes.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.164.70 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funniest film of the year! 

message: 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)
thread_title: move to lock the page

message: 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 84.198.178.131 (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium 

message: 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 58.168.131.58 (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contrib) - 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ok thanks! that sounds a lot better. Thanks for listening!
Dude7324 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the production page 

message: 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 75.120.113.200 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Quirks 

message: Just wondering, why do they commit suicide? Is it like,
#"Oh, that plant is making me feel so depressed! I'll commit suicide!"
#"What? Why am I holding a knife to my own throat? What?" or,
#"MUST.....COMMIT.....SUICIDE....."
I never got it. → C Teng [talk] 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

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

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

text: Just fixed it myslef. Alexandrothegreat (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deaths and plot details

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 82.5.164.70 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis for the narrative 

message: 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. 198.177.27.19 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misnomer - masses committing suicide 

message: A RiffTrax will soon be available for this movie. Will this be mentioned in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.239.148.14 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RiffTrax 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Edits Made To "The Happening" Page 

message: I recently put in a quote by Charlie Brooker about the film from his guardian column and referenced it to the following link - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/19/fooddrinks-foodanddrink. 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 82.24.102.183 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Review by Charlie Brooker 

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

message: 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 67.171.37.139 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Edson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  we know it was a toxin, but do we know it was the plants? 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Well, here's the URL for the book: https://books.google.com/books/about/Screening_Nature.html?id=qPUcAgAAQBAJ
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 (http://www.impawards.com/2008/posters/happening_xlg.jpg) 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference for production companies