Talk:Freejack

Category Removal
I have removed "Category:Films set in the 1990's" because this film was made in the 1990's and therefore doesn't belong in this category (this category is for films that take place in the 1990's but are produced in another decade). El Payaso Malo --99.26.194.79 (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw this movie today, very cool JayKeaton 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

other notes
Interesting - this movie's setting is only two years away. Cars still don't look like the ones shown in the movie!

The business culture of the movie seems to imply Japan is a primary world business power, and those who want to get anywhere need to speak Japanese and practice Japanese business ethics and methods in order to get their investment in one's business.

A nit to pick - if you can grab people out of time, what's to stop someone from, say, grabbing Alex Furlong or anyone else a second or two earlier, thus undoing the current holder of that body? Would this cause a time paradox, destroying the universe (or maybe limiting it just to our own galaxy), or would the current holder of that body suddenly be exterminated, without a chance to get back into the Celestial Switchboard? Obviously, if time resets itself, they'll have gotten somebody else when the expected freejack doesn't materialize at the expected retrieval. GBC 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradoxes cannot occur. If you pull someone 2 seconds before someone else did, a new time line would be created from that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.88.65 (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a totally brilliant question. 67.188.189.163 (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Goof
It's kinda funny that they got the day wrong in the movie. When Furlong sees the skyline of the city it says on a building "Thursday, November 23, 2009". The 23rd fell on a Monday in 2009. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Outline
No outline.TeigeRyan (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate's recent edits
I have to respectfully disagree with User:NinjaRobotPirate's edits---they are (1) wrong and (2) missed the point of the movie. First, the entire movie makes no sense without mentioning the premise that it takes place in a future where pollution and drug use are so bad that rich people can't just grab any ordinary punk off the street and wipe his/her brain to use them as a replacement body. Otherwise, what's the point of spending a ridiculous amount of money to insert a time machine into a dangerous neighborhood just to grab some unfortunate fellow from the past at the exact second he died in an explosion? Second, it is Vacendak, not Alex, who reveals that Alex did not know the code, meaning that Alex is not really McCandless (or did not absorb enough of McCandless' memories to adequately pass as McCandless). --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You raise very good points, and I agree with them. However, some detail has to be sacrificed when streamlining a plot; per MOS:FILM, plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words.  It looks like I left enough buffer (around 70 words) to allow for some plot expansion, so feel free to correct anything that I got wrong or shouldn't have streamlined.  When I see a plot has been tagged as too long, I first look in the article's history for a shorter version before I waste my time doing a complete rewrite.  In this case, I think the restored plot was from around 2012 or so.  So, I was working off of someone else's plot summary, and I didn't write most of this.  I mostly just copy-edited and streamlined it.  I didn't like the way some details were described, but I figured someone else would correct them if they were truly wrong.  In particular, I agree with you about the ending, and I remembered it as you said.  However, I haven't seen this film in years, and I was tired of rewriting long plot summaries, so I let it go.  As long as the plot is under 700 words, I don't really care what it says, so feel free to rewrite anything I changed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed back in a few details that were streamlined in my rewrite. I think that might fix the issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Also, while looking again this, I realized that the funny thing about the movie is that in several respects it accurately predicted what the 21st century Bronx is like.  It's not as bad in real life as in the movie but if you look at the latest news coverage in the New York Times it is still one of the most violent areas of the Northeast Megalopolis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Need to add source for bad reviews - will do tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptoColinL (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

those weapons and vehicles were like 100 years into the future but the time line was closer to 20 years. The accident happened in 1991 and "Futurama" was at 2019. The time line had to been within a lifetime. Silly. 2601:603:4F80:F820:2419:D10F:5C3D:2D6F (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Linda Fiorentino's Firing
Just watched a short YouTube documentary on the making of this film (Channel GoodBadFlicks) that claims Linda Fiorentino was fired and replaced by Rene Russo since a Morgan Creek executive wasn't sexually attracted enough to Fiorentino. This article says she left due to "scheduling conflicts", but "scheduling conflicts" is a pretty popular euphemism when you don't want to discuss the real reason somebody left a production. 184.98.8.108 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a formula 1 race
The racecar in that scene is a Ralt RT 4 on Laguna Seca. That's a Formula Atlantic and Formula 2-type car, not Formula 1. And given that Formula 2 didn't race at Laguna Seca at the time, that's a Formula Atlantic car.

207.164.102.230 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)