This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eagle Eye article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone know what "$101.4 mit hd x with moeythe United States and Canada" in the Box Office section is supposed to mean? Dargueta ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of headlines -- they did film in Chicago, but apparently California later. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your link to the Chicago Tribune turns up a blank page - clearly a conspiracy covering its tracks. Noaqiyeum ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Eagle Eye is a 2008 action/thriller film directed by D.J. Caruso and starring Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan. The two portray a young man and a single mother, respectively
Kay, why was the part about the similarities to other films removed? It's a legitimate criticism... 74.37.159.6 ( talk) 04:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
—We probably just need specifics. How about Colossus: The Forbin Project for a start— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.158.4 ( talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. The similarities to other films should definitely be mentioned. Rip off/homages - like the concert ending to Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much - should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.152.211 ( talk) 04:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
should it not be mentioned somewhere that Perez eventually defeated the computer herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.242.200 ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Is talking about the "corrupted artificial intelligence system" not giving away too much, especially in the introduction to the film? If I remember correctly that is the punch line of the whole movie..? Fp8 ( talk) 13:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the super computer with a female voice that gets destroyed at the end sound similar to the video game Portal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.84.121 ( talk) 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone else see the connection to Azimov's All the Troubles of the World?
I recently added the edit claiming that the film shot a scene on New Jersey Avenue SE in Washington, D.C. and that Democratic National Committee staffers were notified as such.
This is, indeed, a true statement as I was working there at the time the e-mail received and still obtain a copy of the e-mail from the head of the Human Resources at the DNC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.227.162 ( talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
How do we know what medals they were given? All I could make out was that they were in black cases. While it makes sense that Ethan would get the Medal of Honor; Jerry could have gotten the Congressional Gold Medal, but the Presidential Medal of Freedom would make more sense to me.
On top of that, the medal they do show given posthumously to Morgan appears made up (or at least it does not match any award I can find)
Since the Secretary of Defense is giving them the awards—rather than the President, or the Speaker of the House—perhaps it is meant to be a DOD equivalent to the Presidential and Congressional medals. —
MJBurrage(
T•
C)
17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The one medal they show (Morgan's) is a six-pointed star, possibly in a laurel wreath. The ribbon is dark (blue?) with white edges, and five or six fine gold lines running down the center. — MJBurrage( T• C) 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Perez also got a medal, but her's was easy to identify as an Airman's Medal. — MJBurrage( T• C) 18:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
why didn't rachel get a medal/award? ≈
Sensorsweep (
talk)
17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It is worth mentioning under "critical reception" the (not unjustified) accusations from several critics of plagiarism from 2001: A Space Odyssey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.52 ( talk) 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If you can find reliable sources for it then yes Orchastrattor ( talk) 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The article says that Perez destroys the computer by impaling its main infrared camera with a metal rod. She does indeed do this, however to actually destroy it they drain out all of its cooling fluid. Logicman1966 ( talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No, because when they did, ARIIA started uploading herself to an off-site satellite. So even if that computer was destroyed by the lack of cooling fluid she would have escaped. TyVulpine ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose that the article should point to the disambiguation page as this is not the only use of this title.
Haphar ( talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This article should absolutely be moved to Eagle Eye (film), however the biggest problem is the fact that its literally just a capital letter away from Eagle eye so just deleting this page instead of redirecting seems like a sounder choice. Orchastrattor ( talk) 21:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the summary, critics found the plot unoriginal.
Perhaps, but what is the plot derivative of? If the critics made this point explicit, that didn't make it into the Critical reception section.
Manchurian Candidate? Demon Seed? HAL from 2001?
Yeah, there are similarities but the resemblance is not so strong.
This sounds like another case of critics having seen way too many movies and spotting "unoriginality" behind every rock and tree.
So, if a list of original sources for the "unoriginal plot" could be produced, that might be useful for viewers who found this film suspenseful and entertaining.
And why are only US critics represented?
Varlaam (
talk)
21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The session was interrupted by the Chino Hills earthquake on July 29, 2008—and a recording of the quake hitting the scoring stage is online.
This recording can be found at
http://www.scoringsessions.com/news/156/ ("To listen to exclusive audio of the earthquake, check out the MP3 player at the bottom of the page!") and can be used as the citation needed for this section of the article.
I don't know how to add/edit citations and don't want to irritate the mods, so I'll just leave this link here for someone who can do it properly.
Thanks,
71.163.128.20 (
talk)
19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
At the ATM the balance states $751,000. Before the ATM shows the balance Jerry puts a check into a slot of the machine (a $1,000 check from his father). Question: Is it possible an ATM can read the sum of the check and deposit it immediately to your account? Because later he is asked "who deposited the 750" (not 751) - and on the other side, why wasn't he able to pay his rent the day before, when there where already $1,000 on his account? So I figure the missing $1,000 must come from the check - or maybe I just don't understand a point or missed something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.48.237 ( talk) 06:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT dictate a plot of "between 400 and 700 words". Before 108.20.119.105 ( talk · contribs)'s expansion, the plot is already six words in excess. Because the expansion is simply making the existing prose more verbose by hundreds of words, I've reverted it a second time. This is merely the D of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and I would appreciate it be utilized before expanding again w/o comment or edit summary. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the plot section of this article seems contested, I feel I should explain my recent edit.
The plot section now sits at 698 words; it's lengthy, but I think it covers all of the salient and necessary plot points of the film. — fourthords | =Λ= | 07:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've again reverted BattleshipMan ( talk · contribs)'s expansion of the plot section. Not does it put the word count outside of the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, but it makes claims that the film itself doesn't substantiate (i.e. there's no proof that ARIIA was destroyed. Instead, as I said above, there is circumstantial evidence that she continued operating until being decommissioned). Myself here and Erik ( talk · contribs) above agree with keeping the plot section short, though I'm happy to discuss these concerns here as part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Eagle Eye. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
To those IP editor(s) who are repeatedly removing the qualifier of "science fiction" from the article and talk page: please stop and discuss your rationale here before editing these pages again. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
I removed science fiction from the intro. I do not doubt that it is one of several genres that apply to the film (yes I see the Awards and the Production details) but only the primary genre should be listed if at all possible. See WP:FILMLEDE "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". The guidelines were probably not as clear as they should have been about this in the past, so I expect people were all acting in good faith at the time but in future please try to avoid genre bloat. -- 109.76.144.223 ( talk) 00:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
GwydionM ( talk · contribs) has twice now added a paragraph ( 22 Jan & 28 Jan) at the beginning of the "Plot" section that tries to describe the opening scenes of the film. As I explained in the edit summary for my initial removal, not only is this information unnecessary and irrelevant (as it's covered later in the summary), but it pushes the word-count beyond the bounds of WP:FILMPLOT (from 693 to 734 words).
With regards to GwydionM's second edit summary: ("Restoring the vital first scene. It DID happen, you know.") (a) It's not vital when it's already explained at the point in the summary where it becomes relevant. (b) I'm not disputing that the scenes exist in the film, but it's not the plot summary's purpose to recount a blow-by-blow of the entire film.
I'm removing the content again per this discussion, though I invite GwydionM to contribute here if there's something that I'm not realizing. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thrice now, unregistered users have made 46 total edits ( [1], [2], and [3]) that (a) lack any edit summaries, (b) wordily expand the summary prose beyond what's recommended at WP:FILMPLOT, (c) unalphabetize the categories, (d) violate MOS:PUNCTSPACE, (e) introduce original research, and (f) add a redundant, less-specific categorization. They haven't explained any of their edits, nor complied with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend and entreat any interested editors to discuss these edits here before reintroducing them to the article. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
IMPORTANTis determined either by reliable sources and/or consensus; none of the IP editors have added the former or cultivated the latter. Furthermore, IP editors have not only been bloating the plot summary in contravention of WP:FILMPLOT, but also
violat[ing] MOS:PUNCTSPACE, (e) introduc[ing] original research, and (f) add[ing] a redundant, less-specific categorization.As such, I've reverted your edit and will again implore further discussion here in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not edit warring. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
109.76.203.124 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) has again removed {{
US$}} from the article, saying, USA film of course it is US dollars same as the Infobox. Inflation adjusted figures are entirely irrelevant to the Plot. Add elsewhere like the Production section if you really believe it is important.
The inflated amount is for readers, to allow them to better understand the power of money as it was, compared to their relative present. It's as relevant here as everywhere else the template is used. As for the US$ specificity, it's recommended by
MOS:CURRENCY and a lack of ambiguity is never a detriment. Welcome to the discussion phase of the
BRD cycle. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
10:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eagle Eye article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone know what "$101.4 mit hd x with moeythe United States and Canada" in the Box Office section is supposed to mean? Dargueta ( talk) 00:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of headlines -- they did film in Chicago, but apparently California later. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your link to the Chicago Tribune turns up a blank page - clearly a conspiracy covering its tracks. Noaqiyeum ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Eagle Eye is a 2008 action/thriller film directed by D.J. Caruso and starring Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan. The two portray a young man and a single mother, respectively
Kay, why was the part about the similarities to other films removed? It's a legitimate criticism... 74.37.159.6 ( talk) 04:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
—We probably just need specifics. How about Colossus: The Forbin Project for a start— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.158.4 ( talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. The similarities to other films should definitely be mentioned. Rip off/homages - like the concert ending to Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much - should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.152.211 ( talk) 04:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
should it not be mentioned somewhere that Perez eventually defeated the computer herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.242.200 ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Is talking about the "corrupted artificial intelligence system" not giving away too much, especially in the introduction to the film? If I remember correctly that is the punch line of the whole movie..? Fp8 ( talk) 13:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the super computer with a female voice that gets destroyed at the end sound similar to the video game Portal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.84.121 ( talk) 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone else see the connection to Azimov's All the Troubles of the World?
I recently added the edit claiming that the film shot a scene on New Jersey Avenue SE in Washington, D.C. and that Democratic National Committee staffers were notified as such.
This is, indeed, a true statement as I was working there at the time the e-mail received and still obtain a copy of the e-mail from the head of the Human Resources at the DNC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.227.162 ( talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
How do we know what medals they were given? All I could make out was that they were in black cases. While it makes sense that Ethan would get the Medal of Honor; Jerry could have gotten the Congressional Gold Medal, but the Presidential Medal of Freedom would make more sense to me.
On top of that, the medal they do show given posthumously to Morgan appears made up (or at least it does not match any award I can find)
Since the Secretary of Defense is giving them the awards—rather than the President, or the Speaker of the House—perhaps it is meant to be a DOD equivalent to the Presidential and Congressional medals. —
MJBurrage(
T•
C)
17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The one medal they show (Morgan's) is a six-pointed star, possibly in a laurel wreath. The ribbon is dark (blue?) with white edges, and five or six fine gold lines running down the center. — MJBurrage( T• C) 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Perez also got a medal, but her's was easy to identify as an Airman's Medal. — MJBurrage( T• C) 18:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
why didn't rachel get a medal/award? ≈
Sensorsweep (
talk)
17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It is worth mentioning under "critical reception" the (not unjustified) accusations from several critics of plagiarism from 2001: A Space Odyssey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.52 ( talk) 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If you can find reliable sources for it then yes Orchastrattor ( talk) 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The article says that Perez destroys the computer by impaling its main infrared camera with a metal rod. She does indeed do this, however to actually destroy it they drain out all of its cooling fluid. Logicman1966 ( talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No, because when they did, ARIIA started uploading herself to an off-site satellite. So even if that computer was destroyed by the lack of cooling fluid she would have escaped. TyVulpine ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose that the article should point to the disambiguation page as this is not the only use of this title.
Haphar ( talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This article should absolutely be moved to Eagle Eye (film), however the biggest problem is the fact that its literally just a capital letter away from Eagle eye so just deleting this page instead of redirecting seems like a sounder choice. Orchastrattor ( talk) 21:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the summary, critics found the plot unoriginal.
Perhaps, but what is the plot derivative of? If the critics made this point explicit, that didn't make it into the Critical reception section.
Manchurian Candidate? Demon Seed? HAL from 2001?
Yeah, there are similarities but the resemblance is not so strong.
This sounds like another case of critics having seen way too many movies and spotting "unoriginality" behind every rock and tree.
So, if a list of original sources for the "unoriginal plot" could be produced, that might be useful for viewers who found this film suspenseful and entertaining.
And why are only US critics represented?
Varlaam (
talk)
21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The session was interrupted by the Chino Hills earthquake on July 29, 2008—and a recording of the quake hitting the scoring stage is online.
This recording can be found at
http://www.scoringsessions.com/news/156/ ("To listen to exclusive audio of the earthquake, check out the MP3 player at the bottom of the page!") and can be used as the citation needed for this section of the article.
I don't know how to add/edit citations and don't want to irritate the mods, so I'll just leave this link here for someone who can do it properly.
Thanks,
71.163.128.20 (
talk)
19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
At the ATM the balance states $751,000. Before the ATM shows the balance Jerry puts a check into a slot of the machine (a $1,000 check from his father). Question: Is it possible an ATM can read the sum of the check and deposit it immediately to your account? Because later he is asked "who deposited the 750" (not 751) - and on the other side, why wasn't he able to pay his rent the day before, when there where already $1,000 on his account? So I figure the missing $1,000 must come from the check - or maybe I just don't understand a point or missed something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.48.237 ( talk) 06:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT dictate a plot of "between 400 and 700 words". Before 108.20.119.105 ( talk · contribs)'s expansion, the plot is already six words in excess. Because the expansion is simply making the existing prose more verbose by hundreds of words, I've reverted it a second time. This is merely the D of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and I would appreciate it be utilized before expanding again w/o comment or edit summary. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the plot section of this article seems contested, I feel I should explain my recent edit.
The plot section now sits at 698 words; it's lengthy, but I think it covers all of the salient and necessary plot points of the film. — fourthords | =Λ= | 07:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've again reverted BattleshipMan ( talk · contribs)'s expansion of the plot section. Not does it put the word count outside of the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, but it makes claims that the film itself doesn't substantiate (i.e. there's no proof that ARIIA was destroyed. Instead, as I said above, there is circumstantial evidence that she continued operating until being decommissioned). Myself here and Erik ( talk · contribs) above agree with keeping the plot section short, though I'm happy to discuss these concerns here as part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Eagle Eye. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
To those IP editor(s) who are repeatedly removing the qualifier of "science fiction" from the article and talk page: please stop and discuss your rationale here before editing these pages again. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
I removed science fiction from the intro. I do not doubt that it is one of several genres that apply to the film (yes I see the Awards and the Production details) but only the primary genre should be listed if at all possible. See WP:FILMLEDE "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". The guidelines were probably not as clear as they should have been about this in the past, so I expect people were all acting in good faith at the time but in future please try to avoid genre bloat. -- 109.76.144.223 ( talk) 00:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
GwydionM ( talk · contribs) has twice now added a paragraph ( 22 Jan & 28 Jan) at the beginning of the "Plot" section that tries to describe the opening scenes of the film. As I explained in the edit summary for my initial removal, not only is this information unnecessary and irrelevant (as it's covered later in the summary), but it pushes the word-count beyond the bounds of WP:FILMPLOT (from 693 to 734 words).
With regards to GwydionM's second edit summary: ("Restoring the vital first scene. It DID happen, you know.") (a) It's not vital when it's already explained at the point in the summary where it becomes relevant. (b) I'm not disputing that the scenes exist in the film, but it's not the plot summary's purpose to recount a blow-by-blow of the entire film.
I'm removing the content again per this discussion, though I invite GwydionM to contribute here if there's something that I'm not realizing. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thrice now, unregistered users have made 46 total edits ( [1], [2], and [3]) that (a) lack any edit summaries, (b) wordily expand the summary prose beyond what's recommended at WP:FILMPLOT, (c) unalphabetize the categories, (d) violate MOS:PUNCTSPACE, (e) introduce original research, and (f) add a redundant, less-specific categorization. They haven't explained any of their edits, nor complied with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend and entreat any interested editors to discuss these edits here before reintroducing them to the article. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
IMPORTANTis determined either by reliable sources and/or consensus; none of the IP editors have added the former or cultivated the latter. Furthermore, IP editors have not only been bloating the plot summary in contravention of WP:FILMPLOT, but also
violat[ing] MOS:PUNCTSPACE, (e) introduc[ing] original research, and (f) add[ing] a redundant, less-specific categorization.As such, I've reverted your edit and will again implore further discussion here in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not edit warring. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
109.76.203.124 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) has again removed {{
US$}} from the article, saying, USA film of course it is US dollars same as the Infobox. Inflation adjusted figures are entirely irrelevant to the Plot. Add elsewhere like the Production section if you really believe it is important.
The inflated amount is for readers, to allow them to better understand the power of money as it was, compared to their relative present. It's as relevant here as everywhere else the template is used. As for the US$ specificity, it's recommended by
MOS:CURRENCY and a lack of ambiguity is never a detriment. Welcome to the discussion phase of the
BRD cycle. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
10:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)