Talk:Executive Decision

Premise
It would be great if there was a Premise section, so one can quickly figure out what the film is about. BillMcGonigle (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what the "Synopsis" section should be, if it wasn't twenty pages long. The real solution is to rewrite that section so it can be quickly read to get the premise. Which mean, cutting it down to a tenth of its current size. Matt T. (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've renamed the "Synopsis" section "Plot", and have written a brief synopsis to put into its place. Jersey emt (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Theatrical Release Scandal/Controversy
Maybe there should be a section about the many complaints the film got when it was released in theaters. Lots of angry Seagal fans walked out on the film after seeing his character die at about one third of the movie, even though the studios had promoted him heavily as one of the stars of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.237.250.108 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Steven Seagal was supposed to be the main star. He was apparently dismissed due to assaulting John leguziamo on set. No mention of this here. ToonIsALoon (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To both those points, you need to show reliable sources supporting those statements. Fan response is always difficult to reliably source. Critics seemed to appreciate the shock twist, and although I'm sure Seagal fans were annoyed, I thought audiences in general appreciated the film (but of course it is difficult to find reliable sources to say for sure). Screenrant (misspells his name as "Stuard") says director Stuart Baird planned the death as a shocking twist, that seems to contradict the suggestion that the death was added in response to something that happened during filming. Reportedly Seagal didn't want to film the death scene as written but reluctantly accepted after being being threatened with a lawsuit over breach of contract. It is not clear where Screenrant got any of this from, but Denofgeek have similar story which they attribute to John Leguizamo's book. If someone has access to that book "Pimps, Hos, Playa Hatas" ISBN 9780061749322 they could probably use it to start a Production section and at least try to clearly reflect Leguziamo's version of events. -- 109.77.206.34 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Restrospective
In December 2001, Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune wrote a retrospective review of this film. Certainly there were more than a few people asking questions about life imitating art, but I hesitate to add this to the article just yet. As part of a larger more developed article, a brief mention might be appropriate but I don't want to give it too much emphasis either. For one thing, the Reception section should probably be expanded with more contemporary reviews before adding any retrospective reviews. If other similar articles could be found, any other publications name checking this film in 2001 after the September 11 attacks, that might help indicate if it mentioning it really was an appropriate and a relevant reflection of popular culture analysis or if this one retrospective review was more of an outlier. But as I said, I am in no rush to add it, not without more time, and more perspective. -- 109.77.206.34 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)