Talk:Stay Alive

Is it worh noting the connections between this movie and others like Serial Experiments Lain? --VoltageX 09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maleficus Maleficarum
It may also be worth noting in the plot that the main characters learn about the Countess' weakness by researching the Maleficus Maleficarum, or Witch's Hammer, a 15th century "witch hunting manual" written by Christian inquisitors that was used to prosecute, torture and kill people thought to be "witches" - yet in this movie, it is apparently considered a reliable historical text rather than the demented tool of superstition and oppression it really was.

That's great and all, but does anyone else think the Trivia Section here is useless and poorly written?


 * cough* vandalized *cough*

Also, it's Malleus Maleficarum...

Muffins
I removed the following vandalism:

"i wanna butter this muffin"

Perhaps watch this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.102.213.82 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

plot
Is it really necessary have the way every character dies?


 * Well, if you can write up a proper plot summary of reasonable legnth, it could certainly replace it. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the later portions of this section three of the characters are misnamed.


 * I had the misfortune to see this film recently, and came here to see if the synopsis made any sense of the plot. Having read through the synopsis, I'm left wondering if there are two different versions of the film because there are a couple of significant differences between what I saw and what is written here. I'll rewrite the synopsis making my "corrections" on the assumption that the current version is written by someone with a less than vivid memory of what happened, but I'd be interested to know if there is a "directors cut" or something which makes more sense. GDallimore (Talk) 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've decided I can't be bothered to try to write a synopsis of this rubbish. But, for example, the version I saw never featured the character of Jonathan Malkus and no explanation is given as to how Swink managed to "stay alive". GDallimore (Talk) 21:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now see that the alternative cut is mentioned in the DVD release section. I'll just go away now... GDallimore (Talk) 21:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Just reverted some vandalism, they had deleted most of the article.

Vechs 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot
Way too long! That's the longest plot "summary" I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Doppelganger 18:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure nuking it is really the answer, though. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 20:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You should have seen the initial harry potter 7 plot, it has twice as long as this one.

now its just a really really short plot? 24.32.231.134 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How about shortening it to just a few paragraphs, rather than it taking up three quarters of the page?

I fixed it up now, it should make sense. Feel free to edit it if it doesn't. Farslayer 10:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't a 'plot' basically tell you the plot of the story? What the story is about not give a summary of the whole thing? It's then a summary not a plot. A plot should just tell you what the story or in this case movie is about. Not a play by play of the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.85.51 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the same lines. People just came and made it way longer. I'm not saying my edit was the best or anything, but it was the shortest, then it suddenly turned into an essay... again. Farslayer (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just performed a major truncation of the plot section, reducing it by nearly 3500 characters. It is still too long, but I've never seen the entire movie and can't remove any more detail without risking the introduction of inaccuracies.  I've added all-plot and plot templates to make it clear that more work is needed. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

King Diamond
King Diamond has an album (or two) called something with "Abigail". There is some spoken words at the beginning about killing some evil person (I think that's Abigail?) which needs to be done by driving nails, or something, through parts of the body, head, heart, and something like that. Which of course makes me think the similarities to what I read here is in the film has may not be coincidence. If I'm right, perhaps the similarities can be mentioned later if an appropriate section is added where stuff like this is mentioned (maybe such sections are called "Trivia", not sure but I've seen such sections here in some articles). 62.16.186.169 (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Swink and some of the Plot missing.
Did anybody notice that he dies in the rose bush only to come back to life at the end of the movie? Also the part at the end of the movie is left out when the game is released to the world and everybody starts playing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bending Unit (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that to. I assume that He lived in real life because of the rose bushs but apeared to have died in the bushes. And yes, in the end the video games are released world wide, its not in the plot but I will add it since it is part of the plot unless there are any objections Dragon queen4ever (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alienware
Is it notable that Alienware laptops are prominently displayed as being used by the characters in this movie? Thanks, --114.108.192.47 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it notable that Alienware laptops are featured in Seasons 2 and 3 of Dexter? No, not really. And according to guidelines we shouldn't have a Trivia section at all. Farslayer (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the age-rating really necessary

 * In the U.S. the film was rated PG-13 

Why is this even relevant info? This isn't IMDb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.155.10 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"also Disney's only horror film to date"
Is not cited. Also, I'm not sure how that's true? Through Touchstone Pictures Disney has produced horror films. Perhaps it could be argued that this was the first horror film Disney has produced under a label it directly controlled? I'd have to look more to determine that, but as it stands, I believe this is original research and not a particularly accurate piece of original research at that.

Further, if we're including "distributed" in this clear assertion, then I'm even more sure this wouldn't be considered true.

Also, I've seen entities recently repeat this assertion, presumably with this as the source, without any proof of their own, so if we want to retain this sentence we should be very careful as to source, so that we don't end up reinforcing a mistake with a mistake. 2600:4041:5810:FD00:55:2811:E268:7ABA (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to log in, this is me. Phifty (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, why was this a Hollywood Pictures film? This article is badly in need of a Production section. Phifty (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this statement. Its claim is unclear and seems likely to be impossible to make, even with better precision. Just as an easy challenge, The Village was produced in 2004 by Touchstone, which is a horror film therefore produced by Disney. Phifty (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)