User talk:Objectivecorrector

Salt
About Winter shooting vs. knocking the president unconscious, well, I have a copy of Salt -- Winter absolutely shoots the president. Perhaps different cuts of the movie have different versions of this scene? The radio broadcast about the new president happens just before the credits roll (as Salt is running away after getting out of the Potomac). They don't explicitly say whether the president died in the bunker, but the announcement does mention a new president and the details of the Russia trip. Neilc (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The DVD/Bluray will not be released until next month. Where have you watched it from? Apparently there will be different versions available.  Mike   Allen   00:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen Salt in California, at more than one theater. Since Neilc insists that Winter absolutely shoots the president, then there must be different versions of the film. Also, Neilc says that before the credits roll (when Salt is running away after getting out of the Potomac) the radio broadcast mentions a new president, and I don't remember this: in the version I have seen, the music was very loud when Salt was running away at the end of the film, and maybe this was why I did not hear the radio announcement, or perhaps there were more than one versions of the film, one suggesting that there will be a sequel to Salt. One possibility is that when the movie company saw that Salt became popular, then, several weeks later, they must have released the second version which hints that there will be a sequel to Salt. So if Neilc really thinks that the president was replaced, this is worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article, and he should re-write it again. (This time I will not complain!) Finally, note that a few months ago, when Salt was in movie theaters, at that time many more many more people were editing the article, and all of them agreed that Winter did not shoot the president but knocked him unconscious with his gun, and nobody corrected it for such a long time when so many more people were reading the Wikipedia article, as you can see from the history charts of the article.(Objectivecorrector)
 * The version I have is the "Director's Cut" (obtained online via the usual less-than-legitimate means). So I guess this was something they changed from the theater release? Interesting. Neilc (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia goes by the theatrical version of the film, since (my guess) that is what is usually considered "canon".  Some articles have an "alternative ending" listed though.  Neilc, thanks for being honest about being a thief. ;-)  Mike   Allen   05:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Since a professional writer above said that Wikipedia goes by the theatrical version of the film, then in this case we should perhaps re-edit the plot summary and say that Winter knocked the President unconscious??? However, if it is true that the Director's Cut is so fundamentally different (as it nearly guarantees that there will be a sequel), we should perhaps add a new section to the Wikipedia article, mentioning that the Director's cut has these differences. Let's wait and see if the Director's Cut will be sold at Amazon when the DVD is released. Apparently, the links from Amazon.com seem to suggest that there are three different versions: The theatrical version, 2) the unrated deluxe edition, and 3) unrated extended edition. http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0944835/board/nest/173642881 So far Amazon says that they will sell the Unrated Deluxe edition in addition to the Theatrical version, but both versions are said to be 100 minutes long. It's not clear if the Unrated Deluxe version is the director's cut.

Plot
Books (or chapters within) that study the film in depth can offer a plot summary similar to what we write on Wikipedia. For example, I have the book Dark Eye about David Fincher's films up through Panic Room, and each chapter provides a summary of the film. For the most part, though, most plots are conventional enough that we can provide a basic description of our viewing of it. More complicated films should use secondary sources because our attempts to explain the plot will otherwise cross into original research. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there are very few books written about the details of the movie plots. Many complicated movies simply do not have books or articles that do justice to the plot. For this reason, in the case of the plot, it is unfair to delete the plot if it is correct. In the case of Salt, we also have the additional complications represented by the Director's Cut and the Extended Cut, for which there are no articles discussing the differences in detail. Once again we have no choice but to rely on the DVD to write the article. Objectivecorrector (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Salt is not an example of a complicated film. There are experimental films where it is not possible to provide a basic description without dispute. If editors have to interpret what happened, then this constitutes original research and should be deleted. In its place should be a reliably sourced synopsis that is shorter than the average summary, unless a book or an article describing the interpretative film in further detail can be found. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Salt is not a complicated film, but nevertheless, Wikipedia allows approximately 700 words (more is also allowed) for a movie plot summary. Often it is impossible to find such detailed plot summaries written elsewhere. Already the plot summary (and the section about the Extended Cut and the Director's Cut) have been very heavily edited by many readers, and almost all original research has already been removed. But due to the fast paced intrigue, a lot of people did get confused and wrote inaccurate events, and in general even writing the correct event involves some degree of interpretation because the brain is designed to understand by interpretation in many cases. So in this case, we can also say that Salt can even be viewed as a complicated movie in some ways... I would partially disagree with the view that Salt deserves a much shorter summary because it is not a complicated movie. Actually I do have the capability to make it much shorter, but to do this I have to delete the entire plot section and re-write it from scratch.  Objectivecorrector (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)