Talk:Man on Fire (2004 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creasy's wounds[edit]

I edited the plot summary. Originally it was written as if Creasy made full recovery from the wounds he got during the fight when Pita was kidnapped. I believe it is pretty clear from the movie that this is not the case. The doctors make it clear he is in bad shape, and his friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken) tells Creasy that he won't last very long the shape he is in. I certainly interpret that Creasy never recovers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.7.230 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that he didn't, because there are two scenes that show him in the pool and blood is in the water around him from his wounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.207.66 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request to add an external link[edit]

I run a website where we write synopses and spoilers for movies, and I'd really like to link to our Man On Fire synopsis. I'm not trying to spam; I'm only making this request for about 8 movies in total - ones where Wikipedia doesn't have much plot info and we have a detailed synopsis. I think this would be useful and informative to anyone looking for a bit more detail on what happens in the movie. And this wouldn't break any Wikipedia rules concerning external links...but posting the link myself WOULD break the rules. I can only ask that folks here take a look and if anyone thinks it would be useful to others, to please post the link. Here's the synopsis: http://www.moviecheat.com/ShowDetails.php?mid=144 Rasi2290

Anal Bomb[edit]

The article mentions an anal bomb. Although I haven't seen the movie, that doesn't seem quite right.

Oh, it exists[edit]

Just picked up the movie today from HMV for £2.99 (Tragic price for a great piece of cinema). On the region 2 DVD (and presumably the rest of the world) there are a lot of deleted scenes, available with directors commentry. I watched through about 35 minutes of them, with the commentary, and the director clearly says the bomb is in his anus and it's triggered in the same fashion as the bomb that he plants on the guy under the roadway.

I think really the anal bomb is little bit out of character. I can't really see how he couldnt have just swalloed it instead :)

-SteveG

Yup, the anal bomb really does exist; I'd have to watch it again to pick up what he used (I believe it was C3 or C4) but its definetly in there... --Sidewinded 07:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's an anal bomb. It's a stick of C4 with a pencil detonator and an RF trigger all wrapped up inside plastic and residing in the colon of a corrupt cop, whom Creasy is interrogating. Not a particularly pleasant way to go, but it could be worse, I guess. Could've been a smaller bomb. MachiavellianMeow 10:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Discuss the proposed name change here.

  • Support. Per WP:Name, "When disambiguating a film from something else use "(film)" in the title when only one film had that name and (YEAR film) in the title when there are two or more films by that name (example: Titanic (1997 film)". AFter the name change, the Man on Fire page could be made a disambig page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs)

Epilogue[edit]

It's my opinion, the final portion of the plot summary regarding the ultimate fate of The Voice is awkwardly phrased and interjects opinion. It suggests that we do not ever really see his face despite the newspaper photo earlier and despite the pretty straightforward shot of him falling into the pool after he gets shot. I removed this, in my opinion, erroneous suggestion that the audience never sees his face but was chastised for "removing information". In this case, I would contend that I was removing opinion rather than purely factual information. As instructed, I'm making my suggestion here. Thoughts?

  • Support. --DelftUser 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom R.E. Freak 05:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the change. Leaving this here in case this becomes an issue again.68.178.94.182 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manzano[edit]

Miguel Manzano introduced himself as director of the AFI and a former director of Interpol in Rome. I haven't read the original novel or watched the 1987 film which happened in Italy. So here is my question. Is that something connecting with them? Some homage maybe?--Mato Rei 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Mato Rei: Yes, it's a homage to the original novel which also takes place in Italy. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KR agent[edit]

When Ramos's attorney repeated the drop instructions to the Voice in phone, he mentioned KR agent will check the money at the bank before transport. What's KR agent? --Mato Rei 04:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping and ransom. MachiavellianMeow 10:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Sosa?[edit]

I tought Mexican actor Roberto Sosa played "The Voice", not the actor listed in the article, can someone else confirm/deny this? Vicco Lizcano 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)[reply]

I've just seen the movie and confirmed in the final credits that it's Roberto Sosa, I've made the change, it sucks that IMDB lists the wrong actor. Vicco Lizcano 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)[reply]
Yeah, IMDB sometimes does.--Mato Rei (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA operative[edit]

on the dvd release and on the script it states that "John Creasy, a burned out ex-CIA operative/assassin" not retired special forces I edited this in the beginning lines the wording needs to be changed to reflect this edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benadamspears (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content from article?[edit]

I remember about a year ago there was much more content in the article, including details about deleted scenes from the dvd , production, reception, casting and such. What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the movie[edit]

at the end creasy most likely got killed by the other people. Just my opinion thank you. 71.173.64.191 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... in the movie his eyes close and the thing he is holding drops, implying his death. But the text could be worded in a way so that no interpretation is there. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources[edit]

http://www.writingstudio.co.za/page570.html isn't a reliable source, but we could see if any RSes write what this one writes: "Helgeland's initial screenplay drafts, like the novel, were set in Italy. But Foster and Scott, realizing that the locale and its Mafia antagonists were tired - and that kidnappings had virtually been eliminated in Italy thanks to tough new laws - had locations scouted in Brazil, Guatemala and Mexico." WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novel characters to film characters[edit]

IGN doesn't confirm all of these, but here is the full list:

  • Marcus Creasy - John W. Creasy
  • Pinta Balletto - Pita Martin Ramos
  • Rika Balletto - Lisa Martin Ramos
  • Ettore Balletto - Samuel Ramos
  • Guido Aurellio - Rayburn
  • Mario Satta - Miguel Manzano
  • Dino Fossella - Victor Fuentes
  • Vico Mansutti - Jordan Kalfus
  • Gina Mansutti - Evelyn (Kalfus's wife)
  • Signora Deluca - Sister Anna

While in the novel Julia, Guido's wife, is dead, in the film Rayburn's wife is very much alive.

Mariana Garcia Guerrero has no equivalent I know of in the novel. Creasy, in the hospital, gets all of the newspaper clippings and has much of the research done beforehand. The Rosas Sanchez family has no known equivalent - instead a mafia hierarchy, with Cantarella at the head, is the ultimate antagonist WhisperToMe (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign reviews[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth/Death date of creasy at end of movie?[edit]

Anyone know why it shows "John W Creasy Jan 4, 1956 - Dec 16, 2003" at the end of the movie? As far as I can tell this movie and the novel are not based on actual events. I'm wondering why does the movie seems portray the events like they actually happened? -- Dean Lunz about.createdbyx.com

Early version of Davies paper[edit]

http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Evil/Evil%208/Davies%20paper.pdf

This appears to be an early version of the paper WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifying "fiction" in the lead[edit]

Since the movie ends with birth/death dates and other notes about the characters it might lead one to believe it is based on a true story -- and lead one to the WP for more info about the real life events and characters. Therefore, it seemed important to specifically indicate that the novel is a work of fiction. Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reduce the plot summary[edit]

The Plot section is seriously overlong. This ought to be a synopsis, NOT a scene-by-scene recounting of the presented storyline. It's like listening to some drunk at the bar recounting his viewing of the film.

Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary

Conversely, there's no discussion of directorial technique, most notably use of onscreen titles.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The length is fine with me. Long summaries are informative. 194.230.214.119 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man on Fire (1987 film)[edit]

There needs to be a disambiguation entry on this other film with the same title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Man_on_Fire_(2004_film)&oldid=1208753975"