Talk:Speed (1994 film)/Archive 1

Soundtrack
The soundtrack was credited to Mark Mancina, and the theme is fairly recognizable. However, I am a bit curious as to the actual origin of the tune, because I heard part of it in the film A Better Tomorrow (the part where Chow Yun-Fat is stealing the tape reel), which predates Speed by 8 years. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have listened to various tracks from A Better Tomorrow, and while there may be some similar aspects it's probably just a coincidence. I have since added more details to the section and given further details on the movie's OST. Bushell89 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2011 (GMT)

Citation needed on bus jump
I initially removed this tag without noticing that there was a small edit war going on over this. I apologize if this is interpreted as an antagonizing act, it was not meant to be.

A citation should not be required here because the impossibility this section talks about is based on a simple law of nature that is not (generally?) disputed: a gravitational force will pull an object down unless there is an opposing force (e.g., a road) underneath it. Unless the bus were propelled vertically into the air, it could not land on the same plane on which it started. It's a physical impossibility. Try rolling a marble off a table onto another table of the same height, 3 feet away. Not gonna happen...

Actually... am I missing something? I don't understand why there is disagreement about this. Burbble (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just examined a clip on YouTube that shows the scene in question. You can tell they had to use a ramp of at least 15-20° to get enough vertical velocity for it to make the jump.

To avoid having this debate later, I will mention that the clip comes to a fallacious conclusion based on faulty reasoning. He uses the range equation in an attempt to prove that only a 5° inclide would be needed, and because of this, the bus jump could have been possible.

However, applying that equation (theta = 1/2 sin-1(9.8m/s² * 50ft / (68mph)²) basically shows that a spherical mass of uniform density and no surface friction launched 68mph at theta degrees will travel 50ft in the X direction. Not a very useful conclusion. It is a terrible way to model the situation; it ignores far too many variables and simply doesn't apply to a bus on a road. So, do not be confused by this. It is wrong.

If you watch the clip from the movie, you see quite clearly that bus jump cannot happen in real life. There is already a citation in this article explaining how the visual effect was done: they used a ramp, and erased it in post. The road, as it is seen, is obviously not a ramp. If it were possible in real life, they wouldn't have had to use a ramp!

Bus flings into the air with invisible ramp (movie). Bus just barely lands. Take away invisible ramp (real life). Bus doesn't land. QED. No citation needed. I feel like I am trying to explain that we landed on the moon. Lol... I don't know if I can make this any clearer, nor why I have spent the last hour trying! Burbble (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A citation is needed. A YouTube video is not credible.  WP:V and WP:RS, without a reliable source stating it, it needs a citation period, even if it "appears" to be common sense. I fixed the issue, though, by simply removing the statement all together. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The YouTube video was just a place to view the clip from the movie. Anyway, you are right--the statement didn't actually contribute to the article anyway! Thanks Burbble (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

the ramp was not added through CGI, it was real, although a ramp at ground level was obviously built do to the saftey hazard of trying to jump a buss across the gap of an offramp under construction, anyone who has the special edition DVD can whatch the making of, where it explains step by step how they filmed it... 9:50 March 10, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.240.125 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary adjectives in plot?
There seems to be some disagreement about the inclusion of some more detailed descriptions, like "beautiful" and "passionate" in the plot summary. I think these kinds of words fall under Avoid_peacock_terms so they should be avoided. Does anybody disagree here? Poobslag (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree since they're not neutral, but it looks like they were put back. Senormime (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I put them back in by accident... I've taken them back out. Poobslag (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The blown-up plane
Okay, I admit I probably agree with the last edit that took away from the 'plot' section the lines about the bus eventually colliding with a plane. After all, it is not central to the plot, at least not at first sight. However, it is also misleading to suggest that the bomber's plans to blow up the bus in a spectacular explosion were foiled - when clearly the eventual blast cost several lives and caused lots of damage. Maybe that is an esoteric plot device - that even when the bomber gets what he wants, he still carries on the attacks because his plan is to exact evenge on Jack. I can't decide whether the 'blown up plane' is useful here as a plot device or else deserves a place as a piece of trivia on the IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.85.177 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, his plans weren't to blow up the bus, his plans were to hold the people on the bus hostage so he could collect money. It might be worth mentioning that the bus crashes into a cargo plane and explodes, anything beyond that would be too much detail. As far as detailing all of the property damaged and lives taken throughout the movie, that probably falls under the category of trivia. (although on that subject, how many passengers were on the hijacked subway which derailed and crashed? there's no reason to think the other subway cars were unoccupied, it was the middle of the day!) Poobslag (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Length of the Plot section
I noticed that the plot section was recently "de-trimmed" -- meaning, no doubt, that it was reverted to an earlier, longer version -- by User:FlieGerFaUstMe262. I've noticed, also, that most of the articles on specific films in the Featured Articles list have shorter plot sections than this article in its current state. As Speed is a rather straight-forward action flick, I support reverting the plot section to a shorter, "trimmed" version. I am posting here to gather other opinions, so as to avoid controversy or an edit war. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed shortened edit is shorter in some ways; it avoids mentions of unnecessary topics such as Harry's promotion ceremony, or the "Wildcats" incident. I am in favor of these edits. The proposed edit mentions fewer actors; it does not mention the role of Sam the bus driver, or Joe Morton's character for instance. I am ambivalent towards these edits. The proposed edit is incorrect in some ways, it states that the elevator ransom amount was 5 million dollars (instead of 3 million) and states that Helen was killed after the bus jump (she was killed before the bus jump.) I am against these edits. Overall I think the shorter edit is better, as long as these errors are fixed. Poobslag (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Classic weakness in plot summary
The problem again lies in the simple relation of events that sounds like the result of a school assignment asking for a summary of the plot. An example being "When Annie realizes that Jack stayed with her rather than saving himself, he replies that he didn't have any where to be at the time (meaning he'd rather be with her)." It is very good of someone to spend their time doing these and they state the facts but in a very plain way unworthy of an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.146.226 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Best redirect
I laughed a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bus_That_Couldn%27t_Slow_Down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.128.31 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference in Vice City
There was a mission in GTA Vice City where you had to drive a limousine at a certain minimum speed in order to stop it from exploding. Do you think it may have been inspired by this film?
 * There was also a comparable mission in GTA which involved a sports car. I'm pretty sure both scenes were inspired by this film, yes. Poobslag (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reeves's stunt
Despite what the linked article says, there's no way that's Keanu Reeves jumping from the Jaguar to the bus in the film. The stuntman barely resembles Reeves. On the other hand, there's a shot which is clearly Reeves stepping FROM the bus to an SUV. I'm pretty sure the journalist got their facts mixed up... and now it's being reported as fact here on Wikipedia. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Speed (1994 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615162238/http://www.natoonline.org/infocus/05augustseptember/whedonuncut.htm to http://www.natoonline.org/infocus/05augustseptember/whedonuncut.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Joss Whedon?
Why is there a Joss Whedon infobox on this page? There is no mention of him the article. --Jfruh (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, according to the Joss Whedon page it's because he "wrote uncredited drafts or rewrites of Speed". But you're right it's not mentioned in the article. Poobslag (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the infobox, if someone wants to write some good info about Joss he is welcome to add the infobox again. But the infobox itself needs to be updated also with the link to this article. avalean (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As he was only an uncredited writer on the film, and not a credited writer, producer, or director, it is excessive to include a whole Infobox/Navbox for him, so I've removed it again. (If the article had a "See also" section you wouldn't one link to him, yet someone thought it was appropriate to include a whole Navbox with many links that are far far away from the primary topic of this article.) It is great that the article text mentions his involvement but a Navbox is irrelevant. -- 109.79.93.204 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)