Talk:Stealth (film)

unnamed chat 1

Looks like a bad remake of Macross Plus.

The trailer shows the "bad" AI becoming "sentient" as the result of a lightning strike. For Gods' sake! The whole plot is redolent of decades-old Roddenberry syndrome (remember the original Star Trek, where computers were always nasty and amorally evil, until they blew up trying to come to terms with human emotions?). Shudder. You'd have to pay me an obscene amount of money to see this movie.

Urhixidur 21:20, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

The AI is about as sentient after the lightning strike as it is after. It seemed that the lightning strike plus some other events during the movie caused the AI to gain free will. Sort of like V.I.K.I. from I, Robot, except the AI doesn't set out to destroy some humans to save a lot more. I just saw the movie, so there are some plot details I'm going to add to the article. Cosmos 01:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

My first thought upon seeing the trailers was "Cool, Dale Brown finally made Day of the Cheetah into a movie." Then I saw more and it seemed like a shameless ripoff of Day of the Cheetah. Now it seems more like Goliath. [1]. The less I know about this movie, apparently, the more I like it. -- Yvh11a 02:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I read the plot summary for Day of the Cheetah, and it sounds much different from Stealth's plot. In fact, when I saw the movie the plot was completely different from what the trailer made it seem like. Spoiler: In the middle of the movie, one of the three pilots (I forgot his name) actually works with EDI (the name of the jet fighter with A.I.) to find his partner who gets lost in North Korea, and at the end of the movie EDI expresses regret for his previous actions, and sacrifices himself to save two of the pilots. 05:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

So... essentially a robot is struck by lightning and becomes sentient or self-aware? Wow, I've never seen that in a movie before. Imroy 17:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The fighter jets encountered in the combat scene aren't Su-35 Super Flankers, they're Su-37 Terminators, as called out by the protagonist and visible on their fuselage and thrust-vectoring engines. Edited. Stealth 20:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just watched this on DVD. I picked it up randomly in Blockbusters as the fifth dvd in a buy 5 for £25 deal. It looked a bit poor on the box but I thought what the hell. I was very pleasantly surprised though. It might not have the most original plot if you've watched any Star Trek episodes involving computer AI gone wrong but it was great none the less. Maybe the reason this was such a box office bomb was that it wasn't advertised well. The first time I heard about this film was seeing the box in blockbusters, I don't remember ever seeing a single trailer / poster / tv advert for it over here in the UK. Had I of seen one I probably would have given the film a try. Spanky Deluxe 02:27, 14 August 2006 (GMT)

The movie has serious plot holes in there. Jessica Biel, who plays as Kara, ejects over Tajikstan, falls straight down until she reaches terminal velocity, and ends up in North Korea. There also was a massive airship that was supposed to refuel American aircraft over Russia, and it never was spotted and shot down. And of course, duering the battle with the Russians the UCAV did this rotation in mid-air that it somehow couldn't perform when confronted with the helicopter, which blasted it apart to the point that the UCAV needed to crash into the helo to bring it down. Ace Combat Fanatic 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The HA refuelling airship was not above Russia according to one of the in-movie diagrams. It was portrayed as being somewhere in the pacific ocean. Sybaronde 22:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote?

What is that quote for? Irfanfaiz 14:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Macross Plus?

What's up with that external link pointing to the Macross Plus wiki entry? It should be under "see also", not as a external link. Not only that, but the article doesn't mention any relation with the film and the OVA (whick I think it's minimal, if anything). Seriously, I don't understand what's that link supposed to be doing there.

Maybe a criticism of section should be added

• Trailer's implied plot line doesn't match the movie.
• Opening sequences special effects so overdone, it can easily be taken for a parody of action/flight movies such as Top Gun.

Joncnunn 16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yukikaze reference wrong

Some minor spoilers follow

The reference in the article to Sentou Yousei Yukikaze is wrong. The relationship between the main character in stealth, and Rei Fukai and Yukikaze is different in that Rei Fukai trusted Yukikaze's AI more than his own eyes rather then distrusting it at all. However, there is a similarity between the two productions here. Rei Fukai and Yukikaze were going to be replaced by the FRX-99, an unmanned fighter prototype. Rei disliked it because it was going to force him to part with his FFR-31MR/D Super Sylph, the current Yukikaze. Similarly to stealth (Actually, Stealth is similar to Yukikaze in this respect because the novel which the Yukikaze OVA was based on is several years old) Rei Fukai ends up piloting the 'unmanned' fighter, but only after Yukikaze transfers itself into the FRX-99 prototype after the FFR-31MR/D is heavily damaged. Yukikaze is a much deeper and well done production to Stealth in my opinion. I would suggest anyone who likes a good story, or are just into military aviation check it out.

RegzTigershark

Plot needs to be redone

it contains numerous observations to the making of the film that has nothing to do with the plot:

"Right at the onset here we see the cinematography is intense and the visuals mean business."

"Hmmm."

all in all I've read a lot of "plots" here at wikipedia and this one needs some work. If nobody fixes it up in a reasonable time, I'll take care of it (just never edited these before so I didn't want to hop in without giving someone with more experience a chance". -- thanks

I possess the DVD of this movie.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I POSSESS YOU —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.16.108 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Plot

This section is about ten times longer than it needs to be. It's minutely detailed and uses a very chatty, colloquial tone. I've added the template to it, and suggest that someone who's seen the film give it a thorough tidying.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's copied nearly verbatim from here: http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/stealth.html (or is it the other way around?!) 129.170.247.201 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. It seems our version of the section Plot was deleted and replaced with a very long version in this edit last November. The edit was made by an anon with no other edits. I'm bringing back our deleted version. Bergsten 13:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Story

All references to Star Trek in this discussion has forgotten that this movie is made with the background of militaries from all over the world now (21st century) doing a lot of researh on UCAVs to become a major fighting force in the air. They have even said that in future all new fighter planes will be tested by robots, and not humans. Recently they have even drafted the robots rights in war and rules of engagement. This is a serious topic and the film really stands out in addressing these issues. UCAVs are just a reincarnation of the cruise missle, except that they are re-usable. And in future they will even be able to protect themselves - will self-awareness develop? I like the film a lot! (particularly the conversations with the Tinman, the EDI) Yes, I am a Trek fan too. "It's nice to be part of the squadron."

Fair use rationale for Image:Stealth poster.jpg

Image:Stealth poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18E/F or F/A-18C/D?

The article claims that F/A-18E and F/A-18F aircraft were shown in the film. However, the engine inlets that I saw were clearly the smaller inlets of the F-18A/B/C/D. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Su-47 or Su-37?

This article also claims that the Su-37 "Terminator" is featured in the film but there is no such aircraft, i don't if it is the Su-37 "Flanker-F" or the Su-47 "Terminator" i haven't watched the movie, both are totally different aircraft. [User:Daniel107 ]] (Talk - contribs) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Su-37 is another experimental version of Su-27, with TVC, PESA radar and advanced avionics. Everything's right here (except the real su-37's were one-seated.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.97.107 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...I think those aren't Su-27 Terminators, look more like Su-35S aircraft with a Su-37 paintjob...

IT-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.239.57 (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Clairifications Are Needed

I know that a number of aspects of the movie remind us of other films, but it happens - how many westerns are just basically done over & over ?

And - per the DVD . . .

• Single-seat Russian aircraft Su-37s do exist, also known as 'Flanker-F' or 'Terminator', but are not operational (see elsewhere in Wikipedia).

The movie aircraft appear to be derivatives: twin-seat Su-27UB Flankers.

• With the fighters speed, they had already left the Tajikstan area (Ben had stated ' we're going hypersonic '), when Henry's Talon was destroyed, a piece had clipped Kara's aircraft and she had to bail out.
• Twin 2-seater 18-Fs were shown flying low over Kara & Ben at the N/S Korean border .
• The UCAV's rotation was different when it was in hover mode, versus

high speed.

• And YES, Director Cohen recast EDI's voice, bringing in an uncredited Val Kilmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFSLAKES1 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

additional image

— pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of Myanmar or Burma

In the article the names Burma and Myanmar are used the film was from 2005 the name burma was out of use during the 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot was probably altered for avoiding political repercussions

The 'Rangoon' (Yangon) bombing scene reveals after detailed analysis that the city depicted in this CG rendering resembles with her four lane, traffic jammed highways and clusters of medium high rise buildings and especially a new Ministry of Defense facility located in downtown quite closely Tehran. Yangon however actually shows a substantially different profile with only a few high rise buildings and rather modest traffic.

Moreover the entire plot story of 'international Terrorists' gathering for a 'summit' meeting would be far more fitting for Iran than for Myanmar since using proxy groups for asymmetrical warfare is certainly the trademark of Iranian politics whereas the military regime in Myanmar incidentally is known for ruthlessly suppressing their own Muslim minorities.

As the movie was about to be released back in '05 some clever guys in the DoD were probably suddenly worried about showing Iran's capital Tehran being bombed by 'fictitious' USN planes in a prospective blockbuster movie produced with substantial Pentagon assistance. So the producers got the 'order' to move the scene to another 'Outpost of tyranny' country with a lot less backlash potential. Indeed Myanmar blacklisted the movie and also uttered some official protests but of course nobody in the US cared about this. The potential reaction of Iran however could have been far more serious (Iraq, Afghanistan, Hormuz Strait) and so the rest of a logical plot got whacked out...(but was someone actually missing it?).

Arthur C. D. (2.7.09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.115.140.192 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's downtown Bangkok, actually. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"bombing Rangoon for aiding the terrorists."

Wasn't the task eliminating the terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.97.107 (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not one of the items listed under 'Cultural references' is a cultural reference

I assume that cultural references in the film are, roughly, allusions the film makes to cultural phenomena, especially other works of film, literature, art, and music. If this is right, it doesn't look as though any of the items listed under the cultural references heading deserves to be.

The fact that the film was influenced by something called 'Macross', or 'Macross plus', does not mean that it makes reference to 'Macross' or 'Macross plus'. The occurrence of the 'Kulbit maneuvre' in the film is not a cultural reference unless (a) it is actually a reference (i.e. an allusion) to the manoeuvre, and (b) the 'Kulbit maneuvre' is a cultural phenomenon rather than merely a tactic or technique used in aerial combat. I haven't seen the film, and I don't know anything about aerial combat, but this still looks highly unlikely. None of the other items in the list has a better claim to being a cultural reference.

The section appears to be nothing more than a collection of random facts about the film, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.133 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Fox

I've read on IMDB's trivia page for Stealth that it was originally meant to have been a live-action Stax Fox film, but the production company couldn't get the license from Nintendo. FlapjackStantz (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Video game

Wasn't it based on a video game? Lebcro (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)