Talk:Skyline (2010 film)

Untitled

The synopsis used on the website ohmygore was derived from the creators of Skyline themselves from the imdb page for the film. Ohmygore has absolutely no right on the synopsis. The synopsis has been printed on several other websites as well including those referenced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamODin (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was previously approved for publication on other media doesn't mean we can copy / paste it onto Wikipedia without permission. The material was rightly identified as problematic and removed. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: [1] Talk about asinine. A couple of non lawyers who are ignorant of the law, are arguing over a couple of sentences. Fair use people. Quit making wikipedia so editor unfriendly no one wants to edit. Adamtheclown (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Thank you. Someone yet again copied from IMDb. Just wait until the film is released to write a summary in your own words. Mike Allen 08:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting that all the most vicious lawdogs come out for the worst media. Bottom feeding scumbags. Get a real job, stop making money off people who point out that your stuff is crap. It is UTTERLY transparent and wholly pathetic. Seriously. Go for a walk or something and calm down. No one cares if it was taken off IMDB. Why? Because this is a terrible movie. I can hardly believe im spending the time to write this comment. I certainly wouldnt waste my time otherwise.

Because if we cant use that, it basically become "Aliens land and try to create the Cybermen from Doctor Who for some stupid reason." an actual franchise worthy of something. This movie just rips off everyone from doctor who to signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Budget

I find it hard to believe the budget for this film is only $10 million as stated by the JoBlo source [2]. Mike Allen 08:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just found a better source that cites a $20 million budget. Apparently this is a low-budget "blockbuster". [3] Mike Allen 08:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That source is older - the new sources point to quotes from the filmmakers and should be considered correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.183.194 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So the budget was decreased over time? I don't think so. I'm challenging the JoBlo source because I do not believe that a film this big (with that much digital effects) would be only $10 million. Mike Allen 23:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No but that Wrap article was not confirmed by the filmmakers. The JoBlo article is a direct quote from the film's producer with correlation from the co-director. It should take precedent over second hand reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.64.29 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've included a range with both sources. Mike Allen 02:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike Allen - You need to stop. Its quite clear you are being wholly, unambiguously biased. You clearly want to scrub this site of anything reveal what a terrible, godawful movie this was and how many resources its wasted. I imagine you have some connection, financial or otherwise, to this film and that you have done everything possible to show you have nowhere near a neutral point of view. Just admit the movie sucked and isnt worth the MS Paint that its special effects were made in, and stop being a brat. Nobody likes what you have to say. Because its stupid and whiny. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Can someone with knowledge of this film's plot please up date the contents of the plot section? The plot section is poorly written. Thank you.

It's fine the way it is. CloudKade11 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree this plot needs more details - anyone no anything they can add to increase the level of details? --76.235.62.194 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Um.. not until the film is released. Mike Allen 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand all this fuss. It's perfectly fine the way it's written and doesn't give out any spoilers. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Spoilers"? Lol. Wikipedia:Spoiler --81.132.65.92 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.89.6.189, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I would elaborate on the nuked alien mothership. It doesn't simply regenerate--it crashes and alien survivors on the ground begin repairing it with material from the ruined buildings.

97.89.6.189 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. elektrikSHOOS 01:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Selasesolc, 16 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There's already a 45-page treatment that's already done. We've already got the second one all mapped out, we just need to finish the script.

http://io9.com/5687922/hydras-drones-and-tankers-the-inside-scoop-on-skylines-alien-shock-troops

Selasesolc (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please be more specific about what you want changed or added. BOVINEBOY2008 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what dude wants to tell us, but my question is: From what language to what language was that text translated?? I think it somewhat resembles english...*scnr* --92.202.9.225 (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

{{plot}} should not have been removed

I disagree with the removal of the {{plot}} template. According to WP:FILMPLOT, Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The current 'summary' is 721 words long. Please cut it down to size or I will re-add the template because its removal was not discussed at all. Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a guideline, not a rule. 721 is just fine. Millahnna (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Plot" section is now 791 words long. How is this an improvement? Please re-read WP:FILMPLOT. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. It also says: (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) There has been no discussion, just a dismissive scoff from one editor. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

An interview with Eric Balfour where he talks about what he describes as a guerrilla style of film-making used in production.

He talks about the same sort of thing here and there are links to other articles about the film (including a set visit).

I would add some material myself based on these but I'm not too sure what to do with them. They seem like they'd fit under the production section, perhaps after the paragraph talking about the small budget. Thoughts? Millahnna (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot 2.0

Elizium23 had done a wholsale revert of changes I made to the plot, saying to see the discussion. Unfortunately, I don't actually see any discussion points made by them after the revert. Does anybody know what discussion they were referring to? I tried to address som issues I felt the previous plot summary had. I think claiming that the brains work like batteries or that Jarrod's control at the end was due to exposure to the light is speculation. I think saying that the veins in Jarrod's face were "burning" is incorrect (or, at least, poorly phrased) I think saying that jarrod retained control of the alien body because he was was "innoculated" does not realy make sense -- the aliens didn't infect his brain; they ripped it out of his head -- I see an old thread Elizium23 used commenting on the length of the plot. I don't think my edits increased the size of the plot. Regardless, if the plot is too long, I think it should be edited down to size. We shouldn't revert wholesale to information that is not entirely accurate. -- Bertrc (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points regarding batteries, the light exposure and burning; the first to, though likely, ARE interpretative and the third is not only interpretative but also awkwardly written (the characters describe the sensation as burning would be more accurate). The length IS really fine though. I wouldn't complain if we could make it shorter but still complete and concise. But seriously, 720 words is just fine. Millahnna (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't 720 words anymore, it is currently 791 words. That means that the "improvements" expanded it even further past the guideline. Elizium23 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Still not that big of a deal but yes we are edging into "keep a major eye on detail creep" territory. Still, some movies just inherently use more words. The 2009 Star Trek film is at a hair over 800, for example. I haven't read over this plot in detail in a few days. I'll give it a look an see if I spot any of the obvious suspects that bloat length. But I wouldn't stress too hard about 790 words unless there's a lot of "film cuts to..." and "movie starts with..." type of language or rambling sentences. Millahnna (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Should We Mention?

That this film was stupid and just a chance for the brothers to show off? This criticism has been raised enough in the press that I think it deserves a mention in the critical response section. I'll provide sources if you wikipeople want them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.193.190 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nono. First you provide sources (in the article), then you edit yourself, and then you are the wikipeople. ;) --92.202.9.225 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to Back Two Part Sequels

The Brothers Strause insist that they will film a sequel with their own money and Universal Pictures to release it, this is going to be a Back to Back Two Part Sequels released on 2013 and 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.232.164 (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for facts like this. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Totals

From the "Box Office" section of the article: "As of December 11 the film had made $21,393,620 in the United States and $43,677,358 internationally for a worldwide total of $73,950,941." Can someone explain how these figures add up? $21.4M in US, plus $43.7M internationally, should yield a total of $65.1M. Where does the remaining $8.8M come from? (Oh, yes, and it WAS a crappy movie.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.104 (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. I have resolved the discrepancy by pasting the latest numbers from the source given. Elizium23 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ratner was producer?

If so, let's list him on the box on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.109.30 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Skyline (film) → Skyline (2010 film) – Since this film is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Skyline dab page, it must be supplied with a more-detailed qualifier for disambiguation from Skyline (1931 film). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Close and resubmit as technical request. This is automatic per WP:NCFILM and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Timmyshin (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.