Talk:Salt (2010 film)

Cameos on ShowCase

The ShowCase TV channel's trailer for Salt says the character will cameo in shows like Claifornication and Haven. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention or alternate universe?

I edited the Premise section which had read "plotting to assassinate the President of America" to read "plotting to assassinate the President of the United States". Am I correct based on the name convention for the US President, or is the film based on an alternate universe where there is a figure called the "President of America"? If the AU premise is true, please revert my edit. Mordicus Egg (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

At one time he is refereed to as President of America. President of the United States seems more correct for the article. Mike Allen 02:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is Peabody

Was Peabody CIA or Secret Service? Mike Allen 03:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

When Winter first saw him, he said "counter intelligence", possibly ONCIX? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Also since Russian is spoken a lot in the film, should it be added under language in the infobox? Mike Allen 01:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to verify that when the film is seen again, because that's just a guess. According to the guidelines for the infobox film template, I don't think that adding Russian qualifies. I believe it was only spoken between a few characters in a few scenes, and would probably need more to justify adding it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading that guideline, Russian doesn't qualify. Thanks. :) Mike Allen 03:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are aware the CIA does have its own counter-intelligence division, correct? When Winters and Salt return to interrogate Orlov, they recognize Peabody, calling him by his name, so it's pretty safe to say he is also CIA. 75.74.188.74 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with IP. Peabody familiarity with Salt and Winter is an indication. Also that he seems to have jurisdiction inside a CIA-buidling (leading the assault team etc) gives a hint he is with the CIA/CICAG. I suggest we remove the ONCIX link. At least until the DVD release to watch a close-up on his ID badge. --Robinandroid (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You may remove it if you think it's not correct. :) Mike Allen 23:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Changed it to Counter-intelligence in general, until further evidence of a specific service is provided. --Robinandroid (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Whose nucleate weapons control was Phase II?

The article says they wanted to control the nuclear weapons of Russia, but I though I heard the plan was to control the "atomic" weapons of the United States. Could someone clarify this? user:mnw2000 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot

How can there be such a detailed plot, when the movie hasn't even been released? That has me a little confused. Caledir _Chat 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The movie was released Friday July 23rd, 2010. At least it was in the US. User:Gramist 2:17 PM, 26 July 2010 (PST)

I thought it was quite obvious written in the lead and infobox that it was released in North America on July 23. I've seen the film and the plot is correct, though it is a tad too long.Mike Allen 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

the plot should be re-written to use the same name continuously for a given character. As it stands the name Salt, Coates, and Margaret are all used to describe the same character without conveying directly that they are the same character. this should be mentioned to clear up confusion when reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.165.84 (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Um it was vandalism. It's been reverted. Mike Allen 01:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The plot description is misleading. Statement: "The enraged Salt, who had gone to Orlov especially in an attempt to save her husband, kills Orlov and everyone else on the barge in revenge: because of Mike, the most loyal Russian agent Salt turns against the system that brainwashed her." implies that Salt turned against Orlov as an effect of Mike's assassination. In the movie she disobeyed Orlov earlier - poisoning the russian president instead of killing him as ordered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.32.17 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot description ends saying "The ending of the film teases a sequel, with Salt about to kill another sleeper agent." This is not the case in the Theatrical Version DVD. It ends with Salt running through the woods after escaping from the helicopter. There is no tag after the final credits. 75.171.8.218 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sequel talk

Noyce told E! Online on July 21 that he hopefully will have a sequel out "in a few years". Well if the box office doesn't pick up, I doubt that is likely. Should this be mentioned in the article (I've removed it from the lead), in a sequel section, or wait until additional information is out since "in a few years" sounds WP:CRYSTAL? Thanks. Source Mike Allen 04:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a "Planned sequel" section at the end? If there's chatter about it, we can include it now and remove it later when nothing pans out. See Hancock (film)#Sequel for a similar situation. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Winter killing the president

The article states that Winter knocks the president unconscious, but he actually shoots him (at least in the version I have). Neilc (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the DVD out yet? Mike Allen 05:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The plot section needs a sentence to explain who Winter is. As it stands, he suddenly pops up in the sentence that includes, "Because of this calculated provocation, the Secret Service, along with Winter, rush the President..." PKT(alk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded that part /\/\ 91.105.49.252 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot definitely needs re-word/re-working

I just watched this awesome movie, and I have to say that the Plot on this movie on wikipedia certainly needs reworking. 98% of it is inaccurate and worded badly, I have changed a little bit of it, because as it was worded before it sounds like Winter killed the President when he didn't he knocked him unconscious. Details in the plot are wrong, like Peabody didn't allow Eve to escape she used her knowledge to escape Peabody was trying to chase her all movie. Plot is written from someone who has not watched the movie and is written like a 5 year old has written it. If it's not changed I'll completely reword the entire plot to what it should be. 91.105.49.252 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is a difference in every DVD version, like the theatrical version and the Director's Cut. Wikipedia's plot summaries come from the theatrical version. I haven't seen it since it was theaters so I don't remember who shot who or knocked what out. With that said, who's Eve? —Mike Allen 18:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Different versions of the film

There are (or will be) different versions of Salt available for home release. All versions are very different from the theatrical version of the film. It's been established by WP:FILM that we go by the theatrical version for the plot summaries. The other versions can be defined in another section in the article. Also, please do not add anything about the different versions (unless it's sourced) of the film in the article until December 21 when it's released on DVD/Blu-ray. If you've watched by now, you've did it illegally. Thanks. —Mike Allen 06:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Deluxe Unrated DVD (just released on 21 December 2010) contains both Theatrical Cut, Director's Cut and Extended Cut. EACH version has a different plot with a different ending.

Here is a list of differences in the plots of the Theatrical Cut, the Director's Cut and the Extended Cut. EACH version has a different plot with a different ending. Now that thousands or even millions of copies of the Unrated Deluxe Edition of the DVD (which contains all 3 versions) are being sold, it is important to make sure that the plot summary at Wikipedia is kept coherent.

Director's cut:

• The interrogation of Salt in the North Korean prison is more violent and the water torture is shown much more explicitly.
• The kidnapping of Mike is shown (in the Theatrical Cut this is only implied).
• Mike explains to Salt many details about spiders, and he also shows her in his museum, a new species of spiders that he has discovered in North Korea.
• In flashbacks it is shown that when Salt was a child in the Russian spy school (where her original name was Natasha Chenkov), she had an emotional friendship with the scar faced boy Shnaider, who would become the Russian suicide-bomber three decades later in the movie.
• In flashbacks it is also shown that when Salt and Shnaider were children in the Russian spy school, their teacher Orlov was cruelly punishing and whipping those students who were not disciplined.
• When Salt is in the barge near New York, Orlov orders the killing of Mike not by shooting but in a much more cruel way, by drowning, and he forces Salt to watch.
• In the barge, when Salt kills Orlov by stabbing his throat with the broken vodka bottle, this scene is shown directly and in more detail.
• In the bunker, Winter actually shoots the president instead of only knocking him unconscious.
• At the end of the film it is said that the US president who has just died is replaced by a Russian mole, and that Salt is killed, implying that Orlov's plan is ultimately successful.

Extended Cut:

• Most of the differences of the Director's cut from the Theatrical Cut are also in the Extended Cut, but the following scenes are different:
• Salt kills Orlov not on the barge soon after the killing of Mike, but only after she returns back to Russia at the end of the movie. So the scene on the barge where Salt kills Orlov and his spies has been deleted in the Extended Cut.
• At the end of the movie, Peabody goes to the hospital to congratulate Salt for having saved the world, because he learned from the surviving president that it was Winter who attempted to launch the missiles, and therefore it must have been Salt who aborted Winter's attempt to cause war. But when Peabody asks Salt to give him more clues to find where Orlov is hiding so that he can be arrested, Salt refuses to cooperate because she worries that the CIA will only arrest Orlov and send him to prison. Instead, Salt escapes from the hospital and secretly returns to Russia for revenge. Salt finds Orlov in the same spy school in Russia, where Orlov is getting ready to send more spies to the United States, and she kills him by drowning him just like he drowned Mike. Salt also destroys the the Russian monastery where Orlov was training children as spies, bringing a closure to the story. Objectivecorrector (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Salt double agent or rebelled because Orlov killed Michael?

So in the summary it says Salt turned against the KGB because Orlov killed her husband Michael, so she acted in revenge. If that's true, then why did she use spider venom to incapacitate the Russian president rather than kill him, since this took place before the encounter in the barge? I thought she was a double agent. booksrule9 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Here is the main reason Salt is only using spider venom to fake the assassination of the Russian president instead of really killing him. Because Salt now knows that Michael has been kidnapped by Orlov's thugs, in a desperate attempt to save her husband Mike, Salt now wants to talk to Orlov as if she has really carried out Orlov's orders by assassinating the Russian president: Salt goes to Orlov especially in an attempt to save her husband. It turns out that at the beginning of the movie, in this film Michael was the only person who cared for Salt, when both the CIA and KGB abandoned their agent Salt-Chenkov as expendable, and this experience dismantled Salt's brainwashing by Orlov, changing her priorities in life. Salt now has a desk job at the CIA, hoping that she will perhaps remain a sleeper agent much longer, or that Orlov will not send her to action, but now Orlov kidnapped her husband in addition to ordering her to kill the Russian president. Now that her husband has been kidnapped by Orlov, she is already turning against the KGB even before Michael is killed since she is now angry at the KGB for ruining the main thing she cares for in life. In fact, maybe Salt was already shedding her loyalty to Orlov even before Michael was kidnapped, once again thanks to the influence of Mike that undid the brainwashing by Orlov. But when Orlov kills Michael, Salt is totally enraged that the KGB killed Mike, as she mentions it at the end of the film (in both three versions.) Now that Michael is dead, Salt has no more purpose in life, and her only remaining goal is to prevent Orlov's plan from succeeding, and after she prevented Orlov's plan from succeeding, she wants to continue eliminating all the remaining agents of Orlov. The plot is multi-layered, and it's worth seeing the DVD more. This kind of convoluted intrigue and mind games is characteristic of Kurt Wimmer, who also wrote Equilibrium movie, which is, by the way, very similar in psychology and plot, even though Wimmer did not receive enough recognition for Equilibrium, which was misunderstood. In Equilibrium, there is also an oppressive and paranoid political system of brainwashing that gets overthrown by an insider, who revolts after an emotional transformation. It is really difficult to make the plot summary of Salt brief without causing discontinuities, since the plot is really complicated and things are interdependent. Those who appreciate the Salt movie should definitely buy the DVD of Equilibrium.Objectivecorrector (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hit

With a production budget of $110 million, the film ended up being a box office hit, grossing over $294 million worldwide. Reviews were generally positive, praising Jolie's performance and the action scenes, but criticizing the implausible plot.

I have removed the above paragraph from the introduction, as it has some problems. The worst is that it makes a severely flawed assumption that the film is a hit because the box office gross was more than the production budget, it just is not that simple, and it is very misleading to frame it that way. The costs of a film are more than the production budget, other factors such as distributions costs, marketing and more add to the complexity of Hollywood accounting and it is original research to claim a film is a box office hit and it absolutely must be backed up with a reliable source.

The introduction must be verifiable WP:LEADCITE. Although citations are not required some articles do include them anyway especially for statements likely to be challenged. The active editors can decide for themselves but in other film articles editors frequently challenge claims that a film received "generally positive" reviews so it is often a good idea to include a named reference to show it is direct from Metacritic and is not original research.
As only two critics are included in the critical reponse section, the claim in the introduction that the plot was criticized seems to be an effort to rephrase the critical consensus from Rotten Tomatoes. The critical consensus is not mentioned in the WP:RTMC Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic guidelines because some editors have expressed concerns about how this supposed consensus is generated (I tend to agree there is a bit of fair bit of interpretation going on and Rotten Tomatoes should frame it more as their own opinion).

Although I removed the paragraph something similar could be added back in so long as it acts as a summary of things already in the article, and avoids making unsupported claims about the film being a hit. -- Horkana (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Salt (2010 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 16:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Review start

Alright. I'll be taking this one up. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 16:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot

• Tis a bit on the lengthy side according to WP:FILMPLOT. As the movie doesn't have a nonlinear plot, you should shave it down a bit. Do so by 40 -50 words.
  • I counted 725 words.. that's counting the actor's name in parenthesis. Without the actor's name, it's 706 words. From my previous GA, this was OK'ed. —Mike Allen `

Okay. I'll take it. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of this section was rather wordy, ie. "Waiting for her is the German arachnologist Michael Krause (August Diehl), who Winter states had campaigned tirelessly for her release." Simplify this down a bit if you can.
  • Done by User:Igordebraga. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast

• There doesn't seem to be much prose involved here. After seeing the notation of the involved people in the plot section, I think this might be extraneous as well. This should be removed.
  • Agreed. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't support this assertion at all. The WP:MOSFILM guidelines don't prevent you from deleting the cast list as some editors are in favour of it but there wasn't a strong consensus and I doesn't seem like an improvement to me at all, to delete it instead of changing it.
  The section has the short character overview the guidelines suggest. The Production section has a lot of Casting information thrown in that could be folded into to give a much better Cast section.

Production - Development, Writing, and Casting

• [1] This reference is linked to a forum. From prior experience, this kind of stuff isn't acceptable. An alternate source needs to be found, because this part seems key to the production of the movie.
  • I believe Igordebraga added this cite. It appears to be a post made from the writer, Kurt Wimmer, in 2002. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Still, third-party sources are what form the basis of Wikipedia's verifiability. A forum with a post made directly by the director is by no means a third-party source. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Production - Filming

• The second paragraph's first sentence is confusing. It should be rewritten for sake of clarity.
  • Done. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• The third paragraph as a whole is pretty confusing as well. It should be split into more sentences and rewritten.
  • Done. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Production - Versions

• Don't see any real problems here.

Soundtrack

• This part also looks good.

Release

• Nothing to report.

Release - Box Office

• On my first run through this article, this portion also looks fine.

Release - Critical Reception

• Whoa, those are a lot of refs bunched up in the first paragraph. I don't believe that the GA guidelines object to it, though, so streamlining it down to maybe one or two sources is optional. Moving a few of those sources to areas where they are cited later might clear up the congestion.

Release - Awards

• Looks fine.

Sequels

• If anything, it seems like this section would be the most likely to grow outdated. Check to see if there have been any updates on the sequel, ie. if it has been confirmed, and who the director will end up being.
  • No updates so far. I have changed the heading to "Possible sequel". —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall

• There are a conspicuously low number of pictures. It isn't mandatory per GA guidelines, but I'd suggest looking for more images to furnish this article.
  • In the process of possibly gaining permission for some free photos of Jolie filming. If that doesn't work.. *gulp* .. I guess non-free images. —Mike Allen 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overall, this could use some copyediting. All throughout, sentences are rather wordy, and there are quite a few verb tense mess-ups, from what I see. (ie. using "have been" when just "were" would work) I'm not the best at English, but I definitely notice problems. None are bad enough to keep this article from GA, but still.
• It looks complete and very near to GA. With the few tweaks I mentioned (plus any more tweaks you should make after I recheck the article a bit later), this should be all set and ready to go.
• Bahaha, I was doing the ref checks when I clicked on one that froze up my browser...This should probably be replaced. Again, not mandatory, but it would save later peeps from a potentially nasty surprise.

^ Tatiana Siegel and Borys Kit (January 27, 2007). "Columbia Sprinkles 'salt' On Slate". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 23, 2011.

• • I was not albe to reproduce this. The page worked fine for me. —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then, never mind. :P --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd check ref 69 [2]. I couldn't find the information from the webpage to support the correspondingly cited info Wikipedia article.
  • Me either! Don't know why that was added... —Mike Allen 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, I think it's pretty good. I've checked about half of the references and they all (except where noted) seem to check out.

Pass

You and User:igordebraga have fulfilled all my basic concerns with the article, so I will pass this one. Congratulations. :D -Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Brian Helgeland

If anyone has the DVD/Blu-ray could you see if Kurt Wimmer is the only one credited for the writing credit? This 2009 Variety article (here) says Wimmer wrote the story and shares screen credit with Brian Helgeland. IMDb nor Allmovie has any mention of Helgeland. —Mike Allen 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wimmer has sole credit ("Written by") in the theatrical DVD. 75.171.8.218 (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Salt (2010 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theinsider.com/news/2079525_Angelina_Jolie_and_Salt_Filming_Albany_New_York_Latest_News
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theinsider.com/news/2236926_Angelina_Jolie_back_filming_on_Salt_after_head_injury_on_set
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212001434/http://grummanstudios.com/2009/01/angelina-jolie-lands-at-grumman-studios/ to http://grummanstudios.com/2009/01/angelina-jolie-lands-at-grumman-studios/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chud.com/community/forum/thread/49493/equilibrium-discussion/150
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215162335/http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/salt/international/ to http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/salt/international/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710191558/http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=118559 to http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=118559
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60Zu27TFF?url=http://www.pressacademy.com/winners2010.pdf to http://www.pressacademy.com/winners2010.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)