Talk:Stealth (film)

message: Looks like a bad remake of Macross Plus.
:The trailer shows the "bad" AI becoming "sentient" as the result of a lightning strike. For Gods' sake! The whole plot is redolent of decades-old Roddenberry syndrome (remember the original Star Trek, where computers were always nasty and amorally evil, until they blew up trying to come to terms with human emotions?). Shudder. You'd have to pay me an obscene amount of money to see this movie.
:Urhixidur 21:20, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
The AI is about as sentient after the lightning strike as it is after. It seemed that the lightning strike plus some other events during the movie caused the AI to gain free will. Sort of like V.I.K.I. from I, Robot, except the AI doesn't set out to destroy some humans to save a lot more. I just saw the movie, so there are some plot details I'm going to add to the article. Cosmos 01:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
My first thought upon seeing the trailers was "Cool, Dale Brown finally made Day of the Cheetah into a movie."  Then I saw more and it seemed like a shameless ripoff of Day of the Cheetah.  Now it seems more like Goliath.  .  The less I know about this movie, apparently, the more I like it.  -- Yvh11a 02:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: unnamed chat 1

message: What is that quote for? Irfanfaiz 14:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote? 

message: * Trailer's implied plot line doesn't match the movie.
* Opening sequences special effects so overdone, it can easily be taken for a parody of action/flight movies such as Top Gun.
Joncnunn 16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe a criticism of section should be added

message: it contains numerous observations to the making of the film that has nothing to do with the plot:
"Right at the onset here we see the cinematography is intense and the visuals mean business."
"Hmmm."
all in all I've read a lot of "plots" here at wikipedia and this one needs some work. If nobody fixes it up in a reasonable time, I'll take care of it (just never edited these before so I didn't want to hop in without giving someone with more experience a chance". -- thanks
:I possess the DVD of this movie.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I POSSESS YOU —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.16.108 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot needs to be redone 

message: This section is about ten times longer than it needs to be.  It's minutely detailed and uses a very chatty, colloquial tone.
I've added the template to it, and suggest that someone who's seen the film give it a thorough  tidying.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's copied nearly verbatim from here: http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/stealth.html (or is it the other way around?!) 129.170.247.201 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I think you are right. It seems our version of the section Plot was deleted and replaced with a very long version in this edit last November. The edit was made by an anon with no other edits. I'm bringing back our deleted version. Bergsten 13:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot  

message: :Image:Stealth poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stealth poster.jpg

message: The article claims that F/A-18E and F/A-18F aircraft were shown in the film.  However, the engine inlets that I saw were clearly the smaller inlets of the F-18A/B/C/D. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/A-18E/F or F/A-18C/D? 

message: This article also claims that the Su-37 "Terminator" is featured in the film but there is no such aircraft, i don't if it is the Su-37 "Flanker-F" or the Su-47 "Terminator" i haven't watched the movie, both are totally different aircraft. [User:Daniel107 ]] (Talk - contribs) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Su-47 or Su-37? 

message: I know that a number of aspects of the movie remind us of other films, but it happens - how many westerns are just basically done over & over ?
And - per the DVD . . .
* Single-seat Russian aircraft Su-37s do exist, also known as 'Flanker-F' or 'Terminator', but are not operational (see elsewhere in Wikipedia).
The movie aircraft appear to be derivatives: twin-seat Su-27UB Flankers.
* With the fighters speed, they had already left the Tajikstan area (Ben had stated ' we're going hypersonic '), when Henry's Talon was destroyed, a piece had clipped Kara's aircraft and she had to bail out.
* Twin 2-seater 18-Fs were shown flying low over Kara & Ben at the N/S Korean border .
* The UCAV's rotation was different when it was in hover mode, versus
high speed.
* And YES, Director Cohen recast EDI's voice, bringing in an uncredited Val Kilmer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFSLAKES1 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clairifications Are Needed 

message: —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional image 

message: In the article the names Burma and Myanmar are used the film was from 2005 the name burma was out of use during the 80's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Myanmar or Burma 

message: The 'Rangoon' (Yangon) bombing scene reveals after detailed analysis that the city depicted in this CG rendering resembles with her four lane, traffic jammed highways and clusters of medium high rise buildings and especially a new Ministry of Defense facility located in downtown quite closely Tehran. Yangon however actually shows a substantially different profile with only a few high rise buildings and rather modest traffic. 
Moreover the entire plot story of 'international Terrorists' gathering for a 'summit' meeting would be far more fitting for Iran than for Myanmar since using proxy groups for asymmetrical warfare is certainly the trademark of Iranian politics whereas the military regime in Myanmar incidentally is known for ruthlessly suppressing their own Muslim minorities.
As the movie was about to be released back in '05 some clever guys in the DoD were probably suddenly worried about showing Iran's capital Tehran being bombed by 'fictitious' USN planes in a prospective blockbuster movie produced with substantial Pentagon assistance. So the producers got the 'order' to move the scene to another 'Outpost of tyranny' country with a lot less backlash potential. Indeed Myanmar blacklisted the movie and also uttered some official protests but of course nobody in the US cared about this. The potential reaction of Iran however could have been far more serious (Iraq, Afghanistan, Hormuz Strait) and so the rest of a logical plot got whacked out...(but was someone actually missing it?).   
Arthur C. D. (2.7.09)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.115.140.192 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's downtown Bangkok, actually. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot was probably altered for avoiding political repercussions 

message: Wasn't the task eliminating the terrorists?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.97.107 (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bombing Rangoon for aiding the terrorists." 

message: I assume that cultural references in the film are, roughly, allusions the film makes to cultural phenomena, especially other works of film, literature, art, and music. If this is right, it doesn't look as though any of the items listed under the cultural references heading deserves to be.
The fact that the film was influenced by something called 'Macross', or 'Macross plus', does not mean that it makes reference to 'Macross' or 'Macross plus'. The occurrence of the 'Kulbit maneuvre' in the film is not a cultural reference unless (a) it is actually a reference (i.e. an allusion) to the manoeuvre, and (b) the 'Kulbit maneuvre' is a cultural phenomenon rather than merely a tactic or technique used in aerial combat. I haven't seen the film, and I don't know anything about aerial combat, but this still looks highly unlikely. None of the other items in the list has a better claim to being a cultural reference.
The section appears to be nothing more than a collection of random facts about the film, and should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.133 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not one of the items listed under 'Cultural references' is a cultural reference 

message: I've read on IMDB's trivia page for Stealth that it was originally meant to have been a live-action Stax Fox film, but the production company couldn't get the license from Nintendo. FlapjackStantz (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Fox 

message: Wasn't it based on a video game? Lebcro (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game