This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The official Web presence currently (if admittedly early) stylizes the film as the book, The 5th Wave. Is it "Fifth" here for any particular reason? — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Being bold, I've moved this back. All official branding uses "5th". — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The "Plot" section appears to summarise that of the trailer, not of the film. Surely that should be made clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamcreen ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The plot will contain the summary of the entire film once its released. Right now, its still not available for the US and UK so that pretty much explains why the plot has the summary of trailer instead of the film. Sultanified ( talk) 19:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The plot should be a little more detailed and complete, as now it looks more like a premise than a plot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

So, no mention in the whole article about this movie mimicking a ton of ideas from the First Wave (TV series)?? From the waves concept, to mind-controlled people, to hybrids - everything was seen in that series years ago. Faust-RSI ( talk) 19:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply

"Cassie Sullivan, armed with an M4, emerges from the woods". So, we're all supposed to know what an M4 is are we? As far as I'm concerned, it's a car from BMW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:424C:1E01:EC61:1B94:66FB:82B5 ( talk) 15:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC) reply

No, no, it's a macro processing language. :)

But seriously, even assuming it's a weapon, I couldn't be sure which one someone meant unless I knew the context. A US soldier? The carbine version of the M16. A European heavy-weapons cop? The Italian/German combat shotgun. A North Aftucan rebel? The slightly out of date but still popular submachinegun. A kid in some future dystopia? Hell if I know. --07:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.130.69.74 ( talk)

There are a number of anon edits to the reviews for this movie that don't seem right. It looks like two users may be edit-warring over it with minor edits (so it now describes a three-star review as one-star, but describes a scathing review as positive).

Meanwhile another (probably well-intentionedly) user repeatedly updated the Rotten Tomatoss and Metacritic scores without updating the ref link to show the new date. -- 166.130.69.74 ( talk) 06:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Did anyone ever consider posting audience score reviews for movies NOT just critics? Increasingly critics scores on Rotten Tomatoes deviate drastically from audience scores, what the typical critic likes often is NOT what the typical movie goer likes. I think considering how many rumors there are from former Hollywood insiders that some critics are paid for good reviews makes it important to include audience scores as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4F01:3A10:460:60E2:1353:1264 ( talk) 07:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

It's stated that the movie company bought the "trilogy." I have not read any of the books; as such, I don't know how much the "trilogy" covers. Therefore, I inquire --- was the "trilogy" covered by the movie? If not, then I would think that there were plans for sequels. If so, why no info about them or info about any decision(s) not to do the sequels.

Just think such info would ad to the article. 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 20:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Uh, the article is misleading. The man has a revolver pistol, as opposed to one of those experimental revolver rifles, and he aims it at her when she enters the room that he is in, as she is carrying her gun. He tells her to drop her gun, but she counters with a demand that he drops his. I didn't time how long the moment lasted, but he did eventually set his pistol on the floor.

As his jacket concealed his right hand, that was covering a wound, she thought that he might have another pistol, so she did not set her gun down. That's why it was so easy for her to shoot him when she mistook the glint of his cross for a pistol. She did not have to stoop to retrieve her own gun.

After he set down his pistol, she kept telling him that she couldn't see his other hand, in a way that should've informed him that she thought that he was lying to her about not having a second pistol.

As it is, somebody might think that she shot him just because of the cross? 🤔 LeoStarDragon1 ( talk) 11:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

There is seems to be little information provided about the Production of the film. There are three subheadings (Development, Filming, and Music) under the Production heading, yet none of them contain more than a short paragraph worth of information. Additionally, the critical reception section is also lacking. It fails to talk about the broader reception from critics, the film's score on IMDB (a well-respected and recognized platform for movie ratings), and it also fails to mention the international box office earnings, discussing only the North American market. The critical reception contains information from potentially unreliable sources. This potentially unreliable source should be replaced by a more reliable source. The plot summary also feels scattered and inconsequential to the movie, however, I have not watched this film yet so I cannot accurately judge it on this point Lunderwoodsfsu ( talk) 23:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC). reply

==Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lunderwoodsfsu ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bethstfrancis.