Talk:The Signal (2007 film)

Please remove the active links for Cast members Robert Sterling and Christopher Thomas. They are both Atlanta-area actors in their 30's (and very much alive). The links are to Wikipedia pages for a different "Robert Sterling" and "Christopher Thomas", both of whom have passed away. Mythlab 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Stabbings? - I dont see how the stabbings in the movie theater have to do with the movie, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.229 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarities to Steven King's Cell

interesting.... anyone have any info as to whther this film was inspired by, or is based on Stephen King's novel 'Cell'? as the story lines look almost identical...

208.34.82.6 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)BIG franky

I having seen the film and read the plot synopsis of 'Cell' on its Wikipedia page, I can tell you that the two have very different plots. Further, at Dragon*Con (and probably elsewhere), the directors said their film was nearly finished when 'Cell' came out and that none of them had read it, but I don't have any citation for it, since I saw it in person. -Ornithopter (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought of the same thing when I saw the trailer and went here to check if it was based upon that novel. If we can cite anything saying the above, that would be helpful. RobertM525 (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any reliable sources online. Just people saying it in forums without citation or citing a castmember friend of theirs, but it looks like there's an interview with the directors of the film in issue 75 of Rue Morgue and an article about the movie in issue 265 of Fangoria, so if anyone has a copy of either... -Ornithopter (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ending

(SPOILERS) Isn't it pretty clear that the escape sequence is a hallucination? The movie doesn't utilize flash forwards, why would it do so at this point? It does however utilize hallucinations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KHorberg (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I came to this page to say. If no one fixes it soon, I will. I don't think the person who wrote this saw the movie to the credits. After they escape it shows Mya all beaten-up looking again and Ben puts the headphones on her, and the music on the headphones plays as the credits roll. 75.15.236.27 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mya has a cryptic reaction to the music before the credits roll; I believe her eyes close. So there is a suggestion that something may or may not happen. In the DVD commentary, the writers explain that it is open to viewer to decide if we had just watched a hallucination or a possible future/flash forward. Also, there is in fact non-linear storytelling in the third act beyond hallucinaitons such as Ben's escape from the truck. The Plot Summary should stick to the facts however, while a different section should discuss the implications of the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.145.64.64 (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Since it looks like an editor just wants to play the revert game, I'll go ahead and take the responsibility myself to start the active conversation. The previous edit only discussed positives of a film. When it scores 57% on RT, that isn't even close to being a consensus that this is a positive film. The new wording I have introduced states it as mixed, which I feel it is. Let's discuss and follow the guidelines and policies set by Wikipedia. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it looks like an editor just wants to play the revert game and scare tactics, I'll tell you no one here ever said there is a "a consensus that this is a positive film" (whatever is "a positive film", anyway?). 57% is a percentage of positive ("fresh") reviews on RT, the RT consensus is "The Signal is gruesome, funny, and has big thoughts about society, but those disparate elements fail to come together convincingly" and it says nothing about it being "mixed" anywhere on RT.[1] That's RT. On MC, it is "Generally favorable reviews" (10 positive, 7 mixed, 2 negative).[2] Learn2read and revert your misguided edit and also your removal of 2 KB of sourced content (including whole release section, which amounts to vandalism), kthxbye. --Niemti (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

RT requires that for a film to be certified "fresh" it must be reviewed by 40 or more reviewers with at least five considered top critics by the website and 75% or more of the reviews must be positive. Not sure where you're getting your information from, but this movie is clearly not considered fresh by RT standards. Also, try and assume some good faith. No need to be hostile. If you and I can't come to some consensus, I'm ok with pulling in more editors to build one. I'm fairly confident they're going to see this as a movie with mixed reviews. I'm just saying we need to portray it that way instead of the biased positive spin that's being placed on it. That's the point of my edit. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And to clarify this as well. When I say "mixed reviews", I'm leaning on some basic math and common sense to come up with that. 39 positive vs 30 negative reviews, by my perspective, is mixed. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No one said anything the film being about "certified "fresh"" neither, stop talking about imaginary stuff (it was The film received 57% of positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (63% from top critics), with consensus that "The Signal is gruesome, funny, and has big thoughts about society, but those disparate elements fail to come together convincingly." which is completely truthful and accurate, as opposed to your invented "mixed" which is a word that doesn't appear anywhere there). And when you're saying "mixed reviews" for MC, you're going squarely against what the source actually says (and it says Generally favorable reviews, which was then accurately quoted in the Wikipedia article as "generally favorable reviews" and nothing more or less), engaging in original research for your biased negative spin (once again obsessively misinterpreting it as "mixed", even as there are only 7 mixed reviews, against 10 positive, with only 2 negative, which is "generally favorable reviews" just as the website said, and just as the article said too). Oh, and your Release-removal vandalism remains a vandalism. And now you can go and revert yourself. --Niemti (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• There have been discussions recently about not imposing our own interpretations on aggregator data as per WP:AGG which states aggregators are not "arbiters of critical consensus". A 57% score may indicate a "mixed" reception (and I wouldn't argue otherwise), but such wording is open to interpretation: it could indicate a film that gained only mediocre reviews, or it could refer to a love/hate split critical consensus, so ideally we need to source an interpretation of the data. Niemti's wording seems to adequately convey RT's and Metacritic's findings (by explicitly providing the scores and consensus summaries) which is the preferred approach in these cases. Betty Logan (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)