Talk:Firefox (film)

Budget

Can the line about the total budget being $21 million and the effects taking up $20 million of that budget be removed? This is clearly incorrect. Also, the citation for this claim seems to be incomplete--Codymr (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

cleanup

This section needs some work:

Fans have stated that when Firefox lands and is refueled by the submarine, that it is a mistake that the American fuel nozzles will mate to the Firefox.

-This detail is false, Soviet Aircraft were designed with mostly universal fuel couplings in order to better facilitate operation from capture air bases in Europe. Not to mention that given all the work put into stealing Firefox it is highly unlikely the Americans would have overlooked such an important detail.

Gant mentions infrared detection beams coming from the Russian Cruiser, this is impossible.

-This detail is ture, infrared is an entierly passive means of tracking a target.

Gant should not have had to think in russian, the aircraft would not be able to tell the differance.

-This detail is false, people think in their native tounge. Firefox was designed to be flown by russians.

I agree I added those details when I should have been sleeping, I will correct them soon if someone else does not get there first.

Who says that people think in their native tongues? I find that an unreasonable statement (at least as a generalization). I do mostly not think in my native tongue.

"Thinking in a language" Im afraid i respectfully disagree. I speak three languages but only two fluently and have to make a conscious switch from one to another. English and Hebrew fluently, Arabic passably. When i speak Arabic, Im actually thinking in Hebrew (as I learned from hebrew) and transliterating as i go along. When i switch from English to Hebrew I also switch in my head. I therefore think that its reasonable to assume the (Fictional) thought controlled flight system would be configured to Russian language thinking. Similarly as the (fictional) CIA and MI6 had not been able replicate this system themselves, they would have been wise to send a pilot that can think in Russian as they don't know how the system works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.224.216 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Okay perhaps primary tongue would be more accurate.

Interesting Notes

"A third design adding rear canards behind the main wings is seen on the cover of the sequel novel "Firefox Down"."

I'm looking at several version of the "Firefox Down" book cover at: http://uk.geocities.com/hindgunship/firefoxdown.htm and none of them show 'canards behind the main wings' (which is a contradiction in terms, incidentally -- canards are by definition in front of the wing, and behind the wing would be a 'horizontal stabilizer'), though one does show small ventral fins. They all look similar to the film version of the plane, so I'm deleting this detail. 68.121.174.194 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed section from Interesting notes

There doesn't seem to be any point to the following entry:

Firefox contains appearances from actors from other notable films such as an The Empire Strikes Back, The Winds of War, and War and Remembrance.

Wow, really? Actors from one movie also show up in other films? Does the press know about this? RoyBatty42 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tech specs for fictional aircraft

This section seems less like an encyclopedic entry and more like the ramblings of fan-boys. Perhaps it should be rewritten in bullet-point fashion, like this:

• Speed: Mach 6
• Weapons system control: accessed by pilots thoughts
• Weapons: 4 50mm machine guns, 2 forward, one reverse firing missles.

Well, you get the idea RoyBatty42 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tu-95

I just saw the movie and i did not see any Tu-95 aircraft. Probably you mean the refueling aircraft for the second Firefox, but one could not tell exactly what type of aircraft that was (there is no aerial tanker version of the Tu-95)--Arado 22:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Internal weapons carriage

The movie shows the weapons are being carried externally, not internally, which would ruin the stealth features of the airframe.--Arado 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if the stores and the mounting points are also well-stealthed. Bear in mind, that if the missiles were carried internally, the exit apertures would - in any event - need to be stealthed. 84.51.188.146 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Speed Discrepancy

I happened to read this article and I noticed in the Plot section it said the Firefox is capable of Mach 6 and in the section Fictional MiG-31 it says its speed capability is Mach 5. Just thought I'd lend a hand and tell you so you can sort it out because I don't know since I'm a random passerby reading the article.Durchschnitt (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cut vs Uncut

The article is incorrect in stating that all versions of the film released on home video are the unedited version. The region 2 DVD is certainly the edited version, I have it and a VHS release and the DVD has quite a bit of material missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.210.32 (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

phosphorus paint???

Should it be fluorescent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.169.177 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting budget notes

I notice that the lead paragraph contains the phrase "The film was shot on a $21 million budget" - and yet the infobox to the right indicates a budget of $18 million.
There is a citation for the infobox budget referencing Hughes (I suspect this is a well known book source that everyone else but me knows...), but there is a citation request for the $21M value. I'd propose the removal of the $21M from the lead paragraph. -86.146.54.124 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The entry also claims that over 20 million was spent on special effects, which is plainly wrong since that means the rest of the film would have cost less than $1 million if the $21 million budget figure is correct, and utter rubbish if the $18 million figure is right.73.162.142.30 (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Alaska setting

In List of films set in Alaska, someone moved this film from the main list of films which were set in Alaska to the smaller list at the bottom of films which were shot in Alaska. I'm pretty sure this is false. It's been years since I've watched this, but I clearly recall that the film began with an aerial shot of wilderness, with a caption appearing reading "HOMER, ALASKA", which is where Gant retired to in order to "hide out" or "escape from civilization". Of course, as the remainder of the opening scenes revealed, that was no impediment to the military superiors who came looking for him to come back and fly this mission. I never read the book, so I don't know if this same detail was found there. I do know that the appearance of such a setting in the film fueled decades worth of speculation here in Alaska that Eastwood owned property on or otherwise was a regular visitor to the Kenai Peninsula. I'm pretty sure that the Alaskan media even acknowledged this at one point, but that would have been so many years ago, I wouldn't know where to begin to find a specific source. I would have also read about it at the time if it were known that any filming occurred in Alaska. Anyway, perhaps this editor was being pedantic because only a small portion of the film was set in Alaska. That was also the case with The Simpsons Movie, yet no one appears to challenging that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Carolinewhaley05@gmail.com 2603:6010:AB00:2920:C505:48EC:1E73:14A1 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Release date confusion

I've reverted the release date back to June 18 from July 18. I realize that the AFI website says July 18, but in this case I believe this is a simple typo on there part. Box office mojo says June 18 and while I know they can often make mistakes I've never seen them be that wrong before. Plus it doesn't make sense, July 18 1982 is on a sunday. Why would a studio release a major motion picture on a sunday.

I realize that in general AFI is a much more reliable source than others, but in this case I feel they are simply wrong.annoynmous 20:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)