Talk:Flight (2012 film)

similarity

Several commentators have noted a parallel with this story and the true-life story of Robert Piché which may be intentional or coincidental; until someone connected to the move makes a based-on a true story claim, it is just a parallel noted by some. I understand Piche is not interested in publicity. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this film has a relationship/dependency on Cliff Robertson's "The Pilot"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.174.63 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary edit war

Someone has been removing the plot summary as a spoiler. However, I disagree with this matter, as Wikipedia is not censored and the entire purpose of the plot is to summarize the film from beginning to end. I am taking this discussion here to see if anyone can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Warned user. It's generally a rule of thumb that if you don't want to learn about a film's entire plot, you stay away from sites like Wikipedia and visit sites like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB instead. That said, I agree, and the plot of the film should not be removed, especially for something as trivial as a spoiler alert. --GSK ● talk ● contribs 20:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert: Lincoln is shot and dies, at the end of "Lincoln." (LOL??) Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm proposing a number of revisions to the current text as of 12/5/2012. I've written them out in my sandbox and here's a link to that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beadmatrix/sandbox#Proposed_Flight_Plot_Summary

and here's why I think the changes are positive:

¶ 1: Drink and drugs go hand in hand for Whip. All the people who were aware he had a problem, and whether they challenge or enable him, are part of the story, when he lied or someone lied for him (Margaret, Evans, Charlie, his ex-wife and son, Nicole), and when he refused help. They take off in a storm (pelting rain), "threads" is the word he uses to rise above it. Saying he mixes vodka with his OJ simplifies later references to it.

¶ 2: Charlie is his friend, more important than colleague and former pilot; more concise too. Margaret and Evans are important witnesses.

¶ 3: Nicole and Whip connect thru addiction (smoke!) by sneaking. Pretty sure they meet after Harling's visit because he gives them the whole pack of smokes(he has more). He doesn't just pass by her apt, he goes looking for her because he's angry. She isn't being evicted, she's skipping out on her lease because she owes rent; he doesn't pay off the debt - just enuff so he doesn't chase her.

¶ 4: Conflict because Nicole is trying to stay sober, again, important that he walks away from help. Alcoholism progresses regardless of stress. He doesn't find a new homestead, just looks for a place to stay til the storm blows over. His attempt to cover his ass with Margaret and Ken important also (more lies, avoiding responsibility). And, the temptation to overlook what he is guilty of because of his skill as a pilot - overcoming his pride is huge in the end.

¶ 5: Truly streamlined.

¶ 6: Really streamlined.

¶ 7: No way to know it's been 13 mos, only that it's been at least a year (from cards in his cell). He stayed in touch with Nicole (photos) but he is just beginning to reconnect with his son on this visit, where his son describes him as the most interesting man he doesn't know.

I hope that covers it. Looking forward to hearing what others may think. Beadmatrix (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix

Thanks, Beadmatrix. You give thoughtful, analytical input.

From an an initial reading of the sandbox, I'm not sure it really differs that much from the current consensus version. I think they read similarly except that the sandbox version is 760 words and significantly overwritten. Which is perfectly understandable — we're not all professional writers.

And so, fortunately, I think much of the over-wordage is not so much addition of extraneous detail, but a technical issue of wordiness, in which the same things can be said in more condensed ways. For example, we don't need to say "Whip's next visitor is his drug dealer, Harling Mays..." — We can just says, "His drug dealer, Harling Mays, arrives...." It's implicit that he's "next" if he's the next person we're speaking about, and it's implicit that he's a "visitor" since he doesn't live at the hospital and he's identified as Whip's drug dealer and not his doctor. See what I mean?

I agree, certainly, that if the film doesn't specify "13 months," we should just say "Later."

My feeling is that it might be better to make one or two edits at a time rather than wholesale changes that bloat the plot past 700. That way, if a wordy passage gets inserted, we can easily make the technical correction to condense words.

What do other editors think? It should be more than just us two discussing things. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to hear from more people too. I'm going to try a few changes, let me know what you think. Beadmatrix (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix

I assume you mean changes to the Sandbox, and not the article itself at this point. That's a good idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As Ive been told by Wikipedia editors, the plot should not be overly bloated. The plot should tell the basic story without the clutter of too many details and nuances. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, the current word count is 643. This is within the range of the 400-700 word range that's given as a guideline at WP:FILMPLOT. Unfortunately most plot summaries tend to be on the longer end -- people just like writing what they saw in the film! :) However, the plot summary is definitely long compared to the rest of the article, and the plot summary should exist to give context to the coverage that we include about the film. So there are two approaches not mutually exclusive -- expand the article in other ways to justify the current length of the plot summary, and/or simplify the summary a little further. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Beadmatrix and I worked this out between us about two weeks ago, and all is good. I guess we should have noted this somewhere here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah-ha, did not see that. Only saw the IP's newest comment in recent changes and assumed the discussion was ongoing. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we edit and shorten this discussion page? ....I just want to make this one comment: An early edit of this article, somebody included the phrase "exhausting all options." Which I later changed to "failing to achieve pitch control." In the movie, whip has no options to exhaust. The plane went into a dive, and reversing the pitch is the only possible option. Adjusting flaps, Adjusting engine power, and lowering landing gear, would be gimmicks to slow down the dive speed of the plane, to buy some extra seconds. But prior to inverting the plane, those other actions he goes thru, have nothing to do with the plane being stuck in a downward pitch. Inverting the plane is the only way to reverse the position of the jammed elevator. MArc S, Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You bring up a good point of something that fell between the cracks. Wikipedia is written for a general audience and the specifics of "failing to achieve pitch control" and other technical jargon is irrelevant to the main plot point, which is that he has exhausted all other options. The technical specifics of those options is not necessary to understanding the plot — indeed, unless the film specifically mentions any of these things, these are OR observations. Restoring "exhausting all options." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you friggin kidding me????? That was not the point I was making. He does not exhaust all options, because he has NO options to exhaust. That was my point. And thusthe phrase "Exhaust all options" does not make sense. The crisis is the plane is stuck in a downward pitch. The only course of action is to try to reverse the downward pitch. There are no options!!! There is only one thing to do: Reverse the downward pitch. THERE ARE NO OPTIONS!!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE CRITICAL OBJECTIVE to achieve or not achieve: pitch control!!!! And I was NOT suggesting to revert back to the mention of options. It does not make sense, thus it does not belong!!!! Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, you are writing based on personal aviation experience. That would be original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. All we can say is what the movie says, and the movie does not go into all such technical details. I am removing the original research and also removing the phrase "exhaust all options" since that seems problematic to you. But please, do not reinsert original-research interpretation since this is strictly disallowed. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I say: Are you friggin kidding me?? 100 years of Aviation History, and "pitch control" is personal research? It is not personal research!! It's a 100 year old aviation principle. I had even linked "pitch" to the Wikipedia article which discusses it. I'll leave "no other choice", but you're an idiot!! Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I recently watched that scene again. When he reports the problem to ATC (Air Traffic Control,)he specifically says he has NO PITCH control! Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And I'll also add: People who assume the task of editors in Wikipedia, and are taking on the authority to delete or edit entries, should be intelligent enough to know the difference between "original-research interpretations" and long-established technical and scientific fact. My mention of pitch control is in no way "original-research interpretation." Marc S. Dania fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

Someone has added a blurb from Critics Speak, which is an amateur website of unpaid, non-professional "critics." We have dozens and dozens of established, impeccable, internationally known professional critics from which to choose. We should not be running amateur reviews. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas the reviews section is lopsided. There are some professional-association certified critics which said simply that the movies sucks because it's repetitive and predictable. For instance Brad Brevet. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary / Vodka bottles

As the recap reads now, the first mention of the vodka bottles being a problem is at the end of the movie, at the hearing. In fact, they are discussed when Whip visits Charlie and Hugh, and it does not come across as much of a surprise that Block would bring them up. 90.229.34.175 (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If citations can be acquired, source of some fuselage[s] used in the movie?

If verification/proper citations can be acquired, can we add some piece - whether under the current Misc. section or under a 'trivia' section, that a number of fuselage parts from retired American Airlines MD-82 aircraft were used for this movie? Right now all I have to go on is a post on Airliners.net - a site, btw, filled with people from hobbyists to pilots and other employees who would be privy of what goes on with scrapped aircraft - but I am hunting for more information as if true this would be an interesting fact to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelsonic (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flight (2012 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/20130117073833/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/12/eberts_top_movies_of_2012.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/12/eberts_top_movies_of_2012.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/18/real-pilots-laugh-at-flight.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)