Talk:Collateral (film)

message: As I was reading through this article, it felt very biased. It seemed like the authors loved the film and didn't want to say anything bad about it. I thought this was shown best in the interpretations area, and especially in the area discussing its filming in high definition. Just a reminder, when your editing this area be sure that you try and stay as unbiased as possible, not matter how hard. DurotarLord 03:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased "feel"

message: Would it be "adding" to the article a mention that the film (well, when I watched it anyway) seems to make the gunshots realistically loud compared to the way most films "mute" gunfire? In a few scenes, it really felt like there was someone a few metres away firing a pistol. Any comment? --Brendan Hide 20:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, in addition to not using any gun silencers, i did notice that the gunshots were too live .. maybe the sound FX guy was really good or maybe they were real live shots.. i suppose they don't use real live gun shots in making movies, do they? --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 19:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, just for the record they weren't realistic. The scenes with the silencer had the gun far to muffled (almost as if it where a whistle when in actuality it would have sounded like the regular gun shots from the film) and the regular ones sounded realistic, but not loud enough. Don't mention that in there as it is not true. And btw, most movies use blanks. In fact, every one ive ever heard of uses blanks, but they don't sound realisticly loud. DurotarLord 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gunshots

message: In this article, it offers what appears to be a very assured explanation of the final shootout at the end of the movie. It claims that Vincent lost the battle because of his failure to change his killing pattern, blindly following the same method he uses to kill all his targets. I think that this theory is incorrect. Don't you think a hitman as experienced and capable as Vincent would know enough to change his method when it is clear it wouldn't work? While Vincent prefers to shoot his victims with the two-in-the-chest, one-in-the-head method, I'm sure that this tactic is used when he deems it appropriate, and I'm sure a man like Vincent, as intelligent as he is, would not stupidly follow this pattern when it obviously wouldn't work. When a metal door is blocking a clear shot of his target, I'm sure Vincent would know better than to shoot at the door itself, and take advantage of the situation and try to shoot through the windows. 
Furthermore, there seems to be no evidence that suggests Vincent even followed this pattern. Although I may be wrong, as I have not seen the film in a while, from what I remember, both Vincent and Max blindly fired their guns without any real method or tactic. I don't recall any real evidence that Vincent used his usual MO, and there are no lingering camera shots or close-ups of the bullet-riddled door to prove this. I think that the victor of the battle, Max, achieved this by simple luck, and not by a particular method used by either of the men. I think to state in the article that Vincent lost the battle because of his failure to adapt is more of an educated guess than proven fact. 
The way the article is currently written, it seems as if the argument presented regarding the final shootout is proven fact. However, as Mann has never explicitly addressed the issue, I think it's going a little far to present it as definitively as it is written. My suggestion would be to either remove this section of the article, or re-write it to present it as one opinion out of many.
RE: Final Shootout
I read this comment and watched the end shootout again, and noticed the following shot:
When the camera is viewing from Maxes side of the door, you can clearly see three bullet holes in the door, with two close together        at chest height, and one at about head height. It's only about 2-3 seconds long, but it is clearly visible Duffking 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Shootout

message: I've done a major edit of the synopsis, expanding the plotlines and adding a great deal of the story that was previously left out.  Added quotes from the movie.  Re-wrote most of the synopsis, as the previous synopsis was written quite poorly (with regard to grammar and sentence structure).  The new synopsis is far from perfect, but should be much better than the previous.  Please feel free to edit any mistakes I may have made or failed to catch.
User:Androoos 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Edit - 12/06=

message: As it was written the last part of the synopsis felt way too biased, so I think the article is better off without it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.89.246 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the last part. 

message: The part on filming in High-Definition feels like a commercial, it really does with things like "There are many scenes of the movie where the use of the high-definition is evident" and "The high-definition images are surprisingly crisp and vivid, even when viewed on a standard DVD at 480i/p resolution" and especially "In Collateral , the use of the Thomson Viper HD Cameras greatly enhances the film noir/neo noir atmosphere and ambience that Michael Mann has projected in his previous work". I bet it was written by people who sell the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Cameras. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused as to how this high definition camera could improve scenes in this movie when it is lower resolution than film. --24.225.226.153 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad for Viper FilmStream High-Definition Cameras

message: :Image:Collateral (Movie).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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 22:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Collateral (Movie).jpg

message: The entire themes section of this article is pretty ridiculous. I personally think that the whole section should just be removed. It is nothing but original research, and doesn't serve any purpose in this, or any other, Wikipedia film article. I vote to get rid of the entire section. 
On a related note, the trivia section has to go to. If no one objects within the next few days, I plan on removing them both. ARSmith 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes Section (and trivia, too) 

message: Why is the themes section removed? The director himself has said what the main theme of the movie is, I do not see why it should not be mentioned. Please do not remove it again without good reason. 124.170.68.166 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not keep readding a section after it was removed. That's called edit warring. Be bold, if its reverted, you discuss, you do not just keep adding it back and demand it not be removed again without "a good reason". It was removed as it is unsourced (which is a very good reason). You claimed it was declared in a DVD commentary, and such a section must be better sourced than such an unclear attempt at a citation. If its verified and properly cited, it still should be a production section, since that discussion of themes is purely the director's view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is primary source information, your removal of it is completely out of order. You are not correctly applying the WP:V policy. If you disagree with the factual accuracy, you need to look at the commentary for verification, you do not simply remove the content and effectively call another editor a liar. It is the source of the information. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A DVD extra is not primary source information, nor does the written claim provide enough details to say which extra to even look at to verify anything. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, and come on. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not the film itself. Its an extra. But I stuck the section back. Since you feel it belongs, I hope you will take the time to go find the extra it is from, confirm this addition is completely accurate, and properly source it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes Section

message: I apologise I didn't know there was a limit in reversions. Can you tell me, AnmaFinotera, why the current version of the plot section is more suitable to wikipedia than my edit? For a start it contains the actors' names, as well as sentences like "in a stunning display of skill" and "in a pivotal moment." There are also numerous grammatical errors and unnecessary detail. There were no such sentences in my edit. Autonova (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: There is a Bollywood copy of collateral titled The Killer. I believe that should this info be encyclopedic it must be added to the article. LegalEagle (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: August 5, 2009
I edited the plot down to its basics. There was way too much plot iteration. Sorry about not tagging it as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.123.28 (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot 

message: As the article is presently worded, it seems as though the coyote scene was a random occurrence that the filmmaker just happened to record.
:Michael Mann chose to use the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera to film many of the scenes of Collateral, the first such use in a major motion picture. There are many scenes in the movie where the use of a digital camera is evident, in particular, scenes where the Los Angeles skyline or landscape is visible in the background. One event of note was the filming of the coyotes running across the road; the low-light capability allowed Mann to spontaneously film the animals that just happened to pass, without having to set up lighting for the shot.
If this scene was indeed recorded simply because it was happening and included in the film simply because it was recorded and not an original part of the screenplay, it should probably be properly referenced.
Any more information on this?
Matthew Meta (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coyote Scene - Not Staged? 

message: This might be a small nitpick, but as it reads currently the plot section suggest Vincent is correcting Daniel after he shoots him.  This isn't really true.  Vincent is more continuing the story than outright correcting him.  Vincent was going to shoot him anyway. MuJoCh (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jazz Club hit 

message: I'd like to offer a shorter and more detailed plot summary if no one has any objections. In the extended content below is my contribution, thanks. KeithLD (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised/shortened plot summary 

message: I feel as if it is worth noting the training the actors undertook with Mick Gould with respect to the weapons used in this film. While it might be trivia on IMDB, I think it would be beneficial to the article. "Mick Gould was hired to train Tom Cruise for the action sequences - including showing him how to fire live rounds. Michael Mann himself trained with various weapons so he knew how to direct the action sequences to full effect." and "Although he never uses his gun in the film, Mark Ruffalo nevertheless underwent rigorous weapons training so he would look believable sporting a gun."
-Deathsythe (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production/Training