Talk:Firewall (film)

Budget
From the article:

"It was filmed with a budget of less than $60,000,000"

I have two questions on this matter:

1. Is this an accurate statement, or a facetious remark? 2. If the above quote was indeed facetious, do such remarks belong in Wikipedia?

Not a troll, just a thought.
 * $60 million is quite cheap for a modern blockbuster, but, yes, is is a little facetious. If one had a budget breakdown or could say “they saved money by…” then I guess it would be encyclopedic. Until then I think we should drop the less than.Scott197827 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on true story?
From the article:

"The plotline is similar to a real-life robbery (the Securitas depot robbery) that occurred in the South of England on 22 February 2006, twelve days after the movie's release in the USA. The raid was the biggest to date in the history of English crime as armed thieves abducted and threatened the manager (and his family) of a cash storage depot for the Bank of England in order to gain access to over £53 million (approximately US$92.6 million)."

Is this necessarily true?

- The real life heist took the family hostage, which is the only similarity; this however is sketchy since the real life family were only held for a number of hours (not days, as in the film). The family was also not forced to have any part in the "framing" of the father, as in the film. - The rest of film is totally different to the real life heist, actual money taken, smash and grab, no police till escape etc....

Realism
After watching the movie I'd add that the computer-usage in the movie is quite realistic. Well, at least compared to a lot of other movies based around computers (*ahem* Hackers (film)). If I was in a better position I'd hunt around for a verifiable source to back this up and am posting this on the chance someone reading cares to follow through with it or knows of a source. If not, oh well. Cburnett 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is unrealistic to think that a security expert could rig a fax machine's optical scanner to upload data into an iPod, without taking considerable to time to write and test a computer program to do this. See software development.


 * One of the biggest myths about computers is that it's "easy" to write software that steals account information. Security cracking is exceedingly difficult and has been getting steadily more so in the last two decades.


 * I do some security-related work, and the layers of protection are much thicker than shown in the film. The idea that someone could write and execute a computer program to withdraw $10,000 from each of 10,000 accounts is ridiculous, although (since it is the main premise of the movie) they did succeed in making it seem plausible. --Uncle Ed 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * other unrealistic points:
 * when Jack first goes back to work, the kidnapers have hacked into his computer; doing so could be very difficult given the importance of the computer.
 * when Jack delete surveilance camera file, we see that he has the password of the guy in charge of cameras. There is NO way he would have this in a company with that much focus on security (there would be some bypass procedure, but it would be long and probably traceable). Additionaly, there would probably be some kind of automatic backup so it would be harder to delete the files.
 * It seems like Cox uses Jack's email to send viruses to people in the building; it would be very unlikely that such a virus do not need the target to open some kind of attachment: this means the virus spread can not be instantaneous.
 * when Jack flees the building with Cox (and his colleagues are already convinced he robbed the bank), he does not meet security in the parking lot, only coworkers (who he easyly pushes away). That kind of company would most certainly have security staff at the entrances (including at the parking lot).
 * Aleph42 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * actually, I think it would be a good idea to collect these in a "realism" section. I always ask myself how realist a film is, maybe I'm not the only one. Any input? if I do this, I will also stress the "positive" points: the things that actually make sense from a security point of view.Aleph42 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Only input any of the above if you can find reliable sources for them, otherwise they're just original research and your (the editor's) point of view. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone realise that they were using Ethereal_(software) in the film? 86.139.242.37 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, the mair article says that Bold textValBold text was shot in the chest, but inthe summary of deaths it says that it was shoot in the head. I saw the movie and cannot safety say where, but i think a contradiction as clear as that does not sees goog.

Deaths Section necessary?
The section listing the deaths seems odd. Considering the storyline, I fail to see how it is germaine to the film to begin with. It would be one thing if this played an intregal part of the story or if the manner of death was noteworty, but it just seems unwarranted. I have cut it out and placed it below so if someone can justify its use they can paste it back in. RoyBatty42 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deaths shown in the movie Firewall

 * Willy - shot in the back of the head by Cox
 * Liam - hit repeatedly by a blender from Jack
 * Harry - shot by Cox in the back
 * Vel - killed with a direct gunshot to the chest by Cox.
 * Pim - killed when Jack slams Janet's car into a gas tank, causing a large explosion.
 * Bill Cox - after a fight with Jack, Cox is killed by a pickaxe in his back.

Synopsis, trivia & cast listing
This seems far too long and specific. Needs to be trimmed, big time. Same goes for the trivia section, with some entries of questionable interest (comparing fight scenes to Blade Runner leaps to mind).

The part that could use some expansion is the cast listing, where character names should be affixed next to the actors which is standard for similar entries  RoyBatty42 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut Trivia
I have removed the following bits of trivia and others can debate their merit. RoyBatty42 06:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the film, Jack uses a high tech program called the "Pet Ray 3000" to find his family. The "Pet Ray" is attached to his dog's collar, which is referenced thirteen times in the film.
 * Long-time Harrison Ford fans may compare Jack's final showdown to the final battle in another one of Harrison Ford's movies, Blade Runner. Both fights are one-on-one, mostly weaponless fights taking place in an abandoned building. The antagonists even share similar appearances. The method of the antagonist's death is similar to that at the end of Patriot Games where Harrison Ford's Jack Ryan kills Sean Bean's character with a similar tool.
 * In one scene you can clearly see Vel playing a Nintendo DS shortly before he tackles the boy to the ground for answering the phone.
 * The name of the Stanfield's boat is the Lark.
 * Software from Microsoft Corporation (Windows XP, Outlook, Visio) and hardware from Dell (servers especially) are promoted heavily throughout the film, much more often than real hardware/software is usually featured in such "hacker" style films.

I could see the second bit of trivia having some merit, I just finished watching Firewall again and the nature of the fight was similar. But then again you have to remember a lot of Ford's films involve saving his wife and/or family, and a lot of which have similar elements. Just watch Wife Force One.

I also thought it neat that when they're tracking a hacker at the start of the film, they were using the application Ethereal, which is a tool commonly used by network administrators to monitor an interface's traffic; I use it also. PlayItBogart 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Willy, Liam, and Bill
Is it a coincidence that all three names are nicknames of William? C Teng (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering, if anyone wants to answer. &mdash;C Teng(talk) 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)