Jump to content

Talk:The Box (2009 film)

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

Infobox

[edit]

Per Template:Infobox Film#Parameters, it's not appropriate to link to an article more than once. In addition, red links like the ones for the producers aren't appropriate because producer articles are unlikely to be created. Lastly, there is no actual release date yet, so the "TBA" is appropriate. Actually, the (2008 film) in the article title is misleading because we cannot say for sure that it will come out in 2008. Some films experience prolonged post-production processes, like with visual effects and editing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

There are a lot of typographical errors in the summary that need to be cleaned up, but I cannot do it because of its protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takis4756 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is bullplop. Replace that for a start. 136.54.116.80 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

I have corrected some vandalism (I think). On Ebert's review of the film someone changed it to one out of four stars which was a change from four out of four stars. I checked Ebert's site and used twinkle to go back to the correct edit of three stars. Not sure if this was vandalism or just misinformation. drewerd

Filming Location

[edit]

A very reliable friend of mine tells me she saw the crew filming here in Boston, MA, at the Boston Public Library. Seeing as the film is set in Virginia, I am a little skeptical that the BPL is going to be a location within the story. Who knows, though? --Epynephrin (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some shooting at Langley AFB in Virginia at a NASA research facility. 75.111.241.86 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film takes place in Richmond, Virginia, and though I'm pretty sure that the filmmakers didnt actually film scenes of the movie here, I did see a couple of shots of the city in the movie showing the Downtown Richmond and MCV area. --A Richmonder (Oct. 27 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.109.92 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary small edit.

[edit]

In the plot summary, I'd like to make an edit in that Arthur attempts to return the million dollars to Arlington, not the box. Sharrabashi (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)sharrabashi[reply]

Okay...then do so? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction?

[edit]

I am curious to know why this film would be considered science fiction? Based on the plot writeup, it seems like pure fantasy horror with no science fiction elements. It only makes mention of Arlington's employers testing the human race, but nothing about whether they are aliens, demons, or what not.—RJH (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot seems to intentionally muddle spiritual, psychological, and scientific reasoning. But I would certainly classify this as an attempt to capture the style of 1950s pulp science fiction. The constant references to the Viking missions to Mars on television and on the radio point to this. Also, the practical use of Clarke's quote about technology/magic, and the introduction of the father's "comic book" collection. Given the leaning toward scifi, I would lean toward the "employers" being aliens. Bgbirdsey (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section

[edit]

Way too long. Somebody fix it, I can't be bothered. --217.39.74.217 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only too long, it's appallingly written.

I second the "appalling" remark (appalling here not used as adjective). The end is not right either, regarding Arlington tipping his hat at the boy. Apparently the author cannot tell that the outside of Walter's home had no snow, while Arlington was standing on a street with snow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.25.229 (talk • contribs) 02:50, December 7, 2009

I'm ona mission to clean up movie plots so I added the plot tag and will add this to my to do list in case no one beats me to it. Millahnna (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It still looks appalling.

-"Steward before his disfigurement." What disfigurement? How is this helpful in the plot summary? It should mention his disfigurement beforehand.

-"Norma's father tells Arthur that Steward's license plate is registered to the NSA and allows Arthur to visit the house of the above mentioned shooting." What above mentioned shooting?

-"She wakes up and finds herself back at home in her bed." Wakes up from what? Just wakes up suddenly as if from a dream? It doesn't mention her passing out.

-"Above her, Arthur hovers within a rectangular water module" What is meant by "water module" here?

This paragraph, "Back at NASA, the NASA chief and the NSA chief are discussing who Arlington is, saying he was struck by lightning and died shortly after. In the morgue though a nurse heard him laughing. He was transferred to a military hospital where his body seemed to regenerate faster than normal, with cellular degeneration halting." just seems out of place. Perhaps if it was written differently? It just mentions "who Arlington is" as if he's familiar, as if we already know of an Arlington, rather than something more like "are discussing who a man named Arlington is"..

"Arthur is taken away by Jeffrey, a gun-toting former employee of NASA who shot his wife, as earlier seen in the 911 call." As earlier seen in the 911 call? What 911 call?

"He reveals to Arthur that he had to choose between his wife or his daughter." sounds somewhat ambiguous. I know what is meant, yes, but.. - It is ambigous ... the whole film is --87.194.112.135 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He shows Arthur the book seen earlier in the picture, and the triptych of water portals." is confusing. He shows him the water portals? ? Just where are these water portals in the library located? It could be helpful to clarify somehow. --216.223.234.174 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure what's supposed to be NASA and what's supposed to be the NSA? Are both agencies involved in the movie? I've never seen it, but I was a bit confused on all the NSA/NASA bits. If both are involved, is there a way to reference that? 65.12.130.194 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments on the plot as it is not the same as the movie i saw, it's a rambling mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.106.174 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Themes section is laughable

[edit]

Listen, I don't usually find very many errors in Wikipedia articles, and when I do I usually just let them slide. The themes section on this article however shocked, shocked me. First off, there are no citations which leads me to believe this was all the opinion of one user. Secondly, this user has no clue how to compose! His thoughts ramble in run on sentences that make little to no sense.

"Others included at concepts of heaven and hell, advancements in technology and there play on human decisions, and aliens." 2 mistakes in that sentence alone, at should be are and there should be their. Also, aliens isn't a god damn theme so that should be stricken as well.

"There are some criticism with the main two concepts of themes that both revolve around the decision of Arthur and Norma" All i can say about that is... WHAT THE FUCK?!?! Is that even remotely logical to anyone? He doesn't even elaborate on what these "criticisms" are

"The first is human curiosity, a trait that some may argue is mankind's greatest trait, which because the box was theoretically empty when opened up, along with mankind's restriction because of their lack of understanding greater technology, it made the box theoretically look as if one took the gamble, they had a higher chance that nothing would happen, but it would be a default that they would get the million dollars." THAT IS ONE SENTENCE!! and it too makes NO sense. At this point I'm praying that someone would give me a box that would kill the moron who wrote the themes section.

"The view may be possible different if the box had given the appearance that death would occur because of it, thus taking out mankind's curiosity aspect, and more to the value of your life versus another."

I rest my case. I move for the immediate deletion of the themes section. As a wise man once said, "If you can't say something smart, shut the fuck up" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencarmeli (talk • contribs) 00:22, August 8, 2010

I agree with your removal. Sections about themes should absolutely be referenced. Let's assume good faith, though... some people want to add to Wikipedia but may not be aware of its policy of no original research. The editor who added the section has been informed of the matter, and we can move on from here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

😂 Joyalinc (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Box (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Box (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Box (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Those who control the lightning"

[edit]

Steward references the "benefactors" in the Wiki article, but should mention that he refers to them as "Those who control the lightning." Also, nothing in the plot discusses the fact that NASA is aware of these aliens associated with Steward are responsible for conducting this test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Ree (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Box_(2009_film)&oldid=1260029767"