Talk:Stormbreaker (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stormbreaker (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Release date

The articles says it's to be released in October, yet there's lots of publicity out around where I live (sides of buses, posters etc.) saying it's out July 21st. --Chrism 18:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see the dates are already mentioned in the infobox. I'll just remove the october reference from the main body of the article.he is cool

hey, sup people? well, the editors of the stormbreaker movie page are wrong, because, there is a cargo plane in the movie, except the fact that it is a helicopter. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.38.253 (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between film and book

Perhaps someone should add a section comparing the book to the film.

I've added a section header for now. If anyone wishes to expand, please do so. Also check if the information is correct before adding. -- Britishagent 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I posted that before but I wasnt signed in. If I have some spare time I'll expand on whats there.

Here's a BIG difference. In the series, Sabina Pleasure doesn't appear until Skeleton Key. Alex meets her at Wimbledon. She does not attend his school. EVER. Also, Nadia Vole never has a fight with Jack Starbright. Jack Starbright plays a very small role in the book. I haven't seen the movie, but I'm assuming her role is much larger in the movie than in the book. I saw no mention of the four wheelers that Alex has to escape in the book. Alex doesn't inject Mr. Grin with truth serum in the book, he threatens him with a gun. Yes, a gun. Does Alex almost shoot off the Prime minister's hand in the movie? Does Alex go through that tunnel with water and whatnot? Sayle had no backup plan in the book... at all. There was one button that activated the computers and the virus. Alex shot the button. (And almost shot the prime minister.) herrod sayle's name was changed to Derrios Sayle in the movie

Could Alex's cover name have been changed because of similarity with Felix leighter of James Bond? Rincewind32 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS

Anyone have info to add about the Nintendo DS and use? here are some links to get started http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=Xedt7mu9vuQSgALdg2ff0dItOEwGXE6Y& and http://www.nintendo.com/newsarticle?articleid=K-gIdwvFB-OyFTl3S2CF83iZ0NmoRfW_

Maybe add it to the "differences than book" section

The Nintendo DS game already has at an article on Wikipedia at Alex Rider: Stormbreaker. If you're referring to its use in the film, the article already mentions it a little but a clearer explanation could be used in the 'Differences between book and film' section. -- Britishagent 22:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I ment how does he use it as a "spy gadget" in the film?

The only thing I can remember Alex using the DS for, is to check his room for bugs. It alerts him to one in the statue. Can anyone think of anymore? -- Britishagent 04:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke bomb in his escape from the mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.216.147.118 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

herrod sayle's name was changed to Derrios Sayle in the movie

DVD Release

Should someone add the DVD release date? Ncusa367 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably deserves a mention in the second paragraph. It doesn't warrant it's own section. -- Britishagent 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these fuckin morons that put these facts, 'Actually salt water would screw up metal in a tank.' Shut the fuck up.

The Editors of the Stormbreaker film page are wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hey, the editors of the stormbreaker film page are wrong, because, there is a cargo plane in the movie. Except the fact that it's a helicopter. Hey, the editors should know about this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soinsobob (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

if you want prof, go to google and type in for image STORMBREAKER THE MOVIE

Lists of trivia too long

The lists of "Differences between book and film," "References and similarities to other films or the books," and "Errors and inconsistencies" take up almost half the article, and are mostly unencyclopedic trivia. Jibjibjib 09:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why its called "Trivia"! DE DE DE! DurotarLord 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Breaker2.jpg

Image:Breaker2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box office gross

This is getting quite tedious, but the IP editor needs to stop removing reliably sourced information from the article. Blanking content like this will only result in a block. We do not privilege one reliable source over another; when they disagree, we report the results as a range. To report only one value is cherrypicking and undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@165.228.41.149:, I'm pinging you so you can contribute to the conversation. For full disclosure, I've been asked to weigh in on this dispute. The issue here is that NinjaRobotPirate is saying that the box office from The Numbers should be included since it reports a dramatically different number, as is evidenced here. The Numbers has been used as a reliable source for reporting box office numbers in the past, so a discrepancy in numbers like this should be reported. Now the thing to look at here is why the numbers are so dramatically different. I can't entirely tell why the numbers are so different, as The Numbers' graph only covers the US box office from October 15 to November 12, 2006. It's possible that The Numbers only included the global box office numbers over a similarly limited amount of time, but I can't entirely verify this without contacting the site. I'm going to do just that right now and see what their response is over this. It's entirely possible that they might not have the updated numbers or they may not include every country, but until we have confirmation we have to assume that both numbers are potentially accurate and we have to take this into consideration in the article. I've emailed The Numbers, so right now it's just a matter of a waiting game to see what their answer is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible that the overseas box office includes showings in formats that may not be considered usable by The Numbers, such as $3 showings and the like, so that needs to be taken into consideration as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the "Numbers" source is erroneous in this instance. Boxoffice.com concurs with Box Office Mojo and according to the Briish Film Institute it grossed around £7 million in the UK alone (over $12 million at 2006 exchange rates). I can't imagine the BFI being wrong about something like this and their UK figure is consistent with the figure Box Office Mojo has down for the UK, so I'd be prepared to bet my life savings on the fact that The Numbers is wrong here with their $9 million figure. To be honest I have come across a ton of inconsistencies at The Numbers and question whether we should continue accepting it as a reliable source; you can read more about my issues with it at Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Box-office/The_Numbers. I do agree we should avoid cherry-picking sources, but as editors we also have a reponsibility to not add sources if we have reasonable grounds for doubting their accuracy. Betty Logan (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's entirely possible that I've gotten more caught up in fighting an edit war than in maintaining accuracy. But if the IP editor would actually discuss his changes, maybe I'd see things that way. My problem was that The Numbers was being used for the budget but completely ignored for the gross. If consensus is that the gross is undue/wrong, then that's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree the onus was on the IP to argue the case (on the talk page) for not using the source. If a source is considered "reliable" the onus is on the editor who wants to exclude it to provide a valid reason. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've apologized to the IP editor for edit warring and invited him/her to join the discussion. I don't think IP editors can get pinged. Hopefully, the page protection will encourage a bit of discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of prodding by Tokyogirl79, it looks like The Numbers updated their gross. It's still a bit off from Box Office Mojo, but it's much more in line with other estimates. I hope that this will end the edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

siphonophore or jellyfish - scientific name or common name?

I'm of the opinion that in a young adult action film, where the wiki article is likely to be read by the target audience, there's no need for scientific nomenclature when the reader is unlikely to know - or care - what it is.

The Man o' War is known as a jellyfish, and there's no reason to confuse the readers by stating otherwise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]