Talk:Snowpiercer

Weinstein controversy
Shouldn't there be some mention about the controversy surrounding the massive cuts to the pictured character development, demanded by Weinstein for the release in the English-speaking world? -- 77.176.121.201 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely! --131.234.204.136 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. "to intelligent for US Viewers" was the Weinstein's (in)famous quote. Unfortunately my english is not good enough to change the article. Soulman (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Added filming in Tyrol/Austria
The start of filming diverts from the other web article cited 62.178.216.204 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"Wilford's henchmen execute nearly 74% of inhabitants"?
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know the answer, but "nearly 74%" is a silly phrase, mixing approximation and precision. How about "almost three quarters of the inhabitants"? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * When Wilford is talking to Curtis near the end, he radios his men in the poor cabin of the train to either execute a certain portion of them, or only leave a certain portion alive. The exactness of it, I cannot remember, but that is where the percentage is coming from. STATic message me!   10:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wilford initially demands exactly 74% be executed. However, due to more deaths than anticipated in the front, perhaps some of the tail would be spared, but the viewer doesn't know for sure - perhaps they kill only 72% to balance out the extra front deaths or perhaps they stuck with 74%. 98.172.54.164 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Recognizing this is three years later. I simply watched the movie. The percentage is from a direct quote of one of the characters in the dialogue of the portrayal. Yes. The phrase seems silly, also the characters in the movie are portrayed as being silly. So this is possibly intentional. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Romanization
Okay, so there is a hidden comment that the the romanization 'Seolgungnyeolcha' is correct:

"According to RR, when the final consonant ㄱ('k') is directly followed by the semivowel-starting-noun(eg: 열차 ; yeolcha ; train), it should be romanized as 'ngn', NOT 'k'"


 * But the rules for RR do suggest that it should be romanized as g. The Korean page also uses Seolgugyeolcha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.161.239 (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is correct that ㄱ is romanized as "ngn" in this case. See Romanization of Korean section 3.1.2, which describes "The case of the epenthetic ㄴ and ㄹ". This website is published by the National Institute of Korean Language, a subsidiary of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, which is an official Korean government agency. It describes the specific case in question, although Revised Romanization of Korean also somewhat covers the case; looking at the table, an ending of ㄱ followed by an epenthetic ㄴ necessitates a romanization of "ngn". I am correcting the article accordingly. ChromeGames923 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Gilliam vs. Gilliam
Why no mention of the fact that the character Gilliam doesn't exist in the comic, at least not by that name? That director Bong based the style of the grotesque and dystopian parts early in the film on Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985) (who's certainly always been as rebellious as a film-maker, constantly rallying against the system and "the people in the suits", as is the character in this film)? That that's probably the reason why the character Gilliam played by John Hurt looks a lot like old Terry today (Hurt is even wearing the same pair of glasses Terry has begun wearing occassionally), and that one higher-ranking security guard in a suit that kills Gilliam looks a lot like young Terry did back in the 80s? The topic is brushed upon a few times in Terry's recent interviews on his recent film The Zero Theorem, I think, where Terry angrily brushes it off. Bong has claimed in interviews that it's all a coincidence and that supposedly, he doesn't even remember watching Brazil. --84.180.255.151 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a number of reviews that notice the obvious stylistic similarities to Brazil (some also to its other two stylistic derivatives, Delicatessen and The City of Lost Children):, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.


 * Reviews that register the character's name as an obvious reference to the real-life director:
 * (opines that the similarities in the names is "not for nothing", comparing the character's influence as a rebel leader to Terry's influence on other movies)
 * (claims that casting Hurt was "suggesting [...] director Terry Gilliam")
 * ("surely named after Terry Gilliam")
 * (calls the name "probably no accident")
 * ("no doubt deliberately named Gilliam")


 * And at least two reviews also openly pointed out the obvious visual similarities between John Hurt's character and Terry:, ("hardly a coincidence" that they look alike). This review  on Zero Theorem briefly discusses the similarities between Terry's works and Snowpiercer as a film, and that Tilda Swinton plays pretty much the same character in both Snowpiercer and Zero Theorem. Here is an interview (led by aid of an interpretor) where Bong denies all these "coincidences" being premeditated. In the comments to this  article on the influence Terry's films have had over the years, journalist Charlie Jane Andersen talks a little more in detail about interviewing Bong about it and Bong denying it. --84.180.255.151 (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Critical response section
The critical response section reads like a bullet-point list of praise for the film rather than an entry summarizing critical reception. Could this be addressed? Andrsca (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of events
I am watching this movie right now and some of the events seem to be out of order. 2606:A000:D982:A100:E894:F302:751B:3798 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For purposes of keeping plot summaries concise, we have the ability to write the plot with an out-of-universe perspective that can simplify and shorten the narrative, as long as does not break logical flow (eg if we talked about a death of that character, and then later talk about a scene with that character). --M ASEM (t) 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot Summary Changes
I think there's plenty of expendable stuff in the edits I did. Why don't you say what aspects of the broader tale it is that you want focused on? Maybe we could replace the expendable events with the broader stuff you find important?
 * Well, for example, the details of the revolt, or the details of what the other train cars hold are excessive; for the revolt, we just need to know it happens and it's violent; for the cars, the only ones of major importance is the school, and the engine and car after it; the general fact that the cars are more extravagant as they get to the front is all that is needed to be said in a broad statement. --M ASEM (t) 22:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Personally if I came to WP to read about the movie, I'd love to hear about what those cars were, I think it's good info that takes up little space. But it's not crucial, so I'll consolidate that, along with the revolt stuff you mentioned.
 * Another thing I did before was take out that they were captured in the school and broke free, because that never happened. I had also consolidated the final fight scenes, as they had been blow by blow accounts.Capuchinpilates (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there are some things that we can keep in there, but one thing to consider is that we do strive to keep film plots under 700 words, and I think this around 750-800ish. I did go through to do some very basic simplification, but I think there is more that could be trimmed down. --M ASEM (t) 16:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A few things. If you are concerned about the length, why are you making it longer? However, the word count as it stands is 655, and I don't think it needs trimming. If you're going to erase the part about learning that the water comes from the front, you're going to need to erase the earlier part about why they want to control the water (or leave both in). Also, right before the blast, it looked more to me like they were embracing for solace rather than sacrifice.Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in broader terms, plot summaries on WP (particularly for a film filled with thematic aspects ) is to focus less on simply reiterating events but focus on the events that are part of the wider theme. This is why, for example, it is unnecessary to list every car they pass through, but some cars, such as the school one, stand out (and we actually don't cover that well yet here - the idea is that the school shows the type of indoctrination that Wilford set up, but that's a separate fact). This is not saying your second version is not in that direction, I agree it hits points we didn't have before. There is more that can be trimmed, or cleaned up, and not at a perfect state yet. --M ASEM  (t) 14:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you can see, I just finished an edit that brings this to 692ish words, but I think captures what you had had but adds in a few things we had previously forgone, specifically more focus on the final scene in the engien w/ Wilford, and identifying the other rebels and why they come along. But it also should tighten up some of the other wording too. --M ASEM (t) 22:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Netflix
It's only noted that it released in UK in May, but I just watched it (missouri here) on Netflix. Can anyone find out and note there when it released in the US Netflix library? 75.134.45.1 (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Korean poster
The Korean version of the poster has the Korean guy in it, not Chris Evans, and the tagline is different, any chance of including it somewhere? The Language Learner (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Precedents
The story seems to gave an awful lot in common with Tumithak of the Corridors any other precedents? 80.6.132.137 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)