Talk:Red Eye (2005 American film)



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

NO CONSENSUS TO MOVE, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Red Eye (film) → Red Eye (American film) – As Wikipedia being neutural, this page should moved to "Red Eye (American film)". there is an article for Korean film of the same name. 성혀니talk with mesee my work 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Oppose. This has nothing to do with neutrality; the American Red Eye was more successful and is more notable. The Korean article is nothing but a picture and a single sentence. It barely qualifies as a stub, because the one sentence of text simply restates the title. On the English language Wikipedia, when people link to Red Eye (film) they will most likely be expecting to get the English language film. A disambiguation note at the top of the page is sufficient. Kafziel 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for same reasons. Peter O. (Talk) 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments

According to IMDb, the English title of the Korean film is Redeye (all one word) - so perhaps that should be moved to Redeye (film) ? -- Beardo 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, IMDb lists 3 different films under slightly different titles: Red Eye, Redeu-ai, and Redeye. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dead?
I don't believe Jackson died at the end of the movie. I thought that he was still breathing as the police arrived. -Hoekenheef 10:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, that also struck me (clem 22:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC))
 * It's suggested that Jackson lives, but is captured. Maybe for the possible prequel/sequels -HoneyBee

Consequences?
If the assassination had worked out, the officials could have easily found out that Lisa authorized the room switching - she never mentions that line of thought though? (clem 22:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC))
 * I think she was more concerned about the threat to her father. Anyway, she had no choice - if she had said no, he would have killed her, her father and come up with a different plan to kill the Director of Homeland Security. The only way she could stop him and save her father was to go along with his plan and then escape. Scott197827 15 December 2005.
 * It's also odd that Keefe's security people didn't question her as to why or how she knew was what going to happen. Good film anyways.Steviedpeele 03:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lisa would be interviewed by them at a later point, but this is a movie and for the sake of the plot, it ends the story at that point and without extraneous details.PNW Raven (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Lacrosse?
It says that the picture of McAdams playing lacrosse is an obvious reference to Mean Girls. Is it just me, or it in fact not obvious in the least? I didn't get the reference.

Horror film?
I would say that Red Eye is a thriller, not a horror film. Can anyone explain to me why this is classified as horror? --Melty girl 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDB classifies it as both Horror and Thriller. At least part of the reason for this must be director Wes Craven, best known for his horror films. The meta tags on the official website includes the word "Horror" as the fourth keyword.  The article was listed as drama/thriller but this is redundant (wouldn't be much of a thriller if it didn't have elements of drama, I suspect someone changed the word 'horror') so I cleaned it up to just 'thriller'.  -- Horkana (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RE55mid 273x400.jpg
Image:RE55mid 273x400.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias?
To me, this article seems awfully pro- film biased, especially the reception section.--Nblschool (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * how about noting that this film makes no sense? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)