Talk:Unbreakable (film)

Freedom For The Slaves Along With The Help With The Self Freed Slaves

Special Notice Eight Sense

Director Its Time To Find Elijah ? Price The Only One Who Has Unbreakable Breaking Ability

Two Extraordinary Survivors John Rejected Ruin Onik John Torosian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.94.42 (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Something about the "writing and directing fees" seems a little... off. But I lol'd.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.198.35 (talk) 6:56 pm, 23 December 2008, Tuesday (8 years, 1 month, 21 days ago) (UTC+2)

It seems like the ending suggests that the movie is based on a true story. When the hero walks away from Mr. Glass at the end of the movies, two blocks of text are blended into the scene:

"David Dunn led authorities to Limited Edition where evidence of three acts of terrorism was found."

"Elijah Price is now in an institution for the criminally insane."

I googled for the story, but didn't find anything of substance. Due to the outragousness of the proposed crime and the popularity of the movie, it seems unlikely that nobody would have built a fanpage on the topic. Another possibility I thought of, is that the movie is based on a comic book, that has the same ending or even continues the story.. It be interesting to have something about this in the article.

It's based on the comic book and I think it leaves to the imagination that the nefarious criminal can somehow escape or can operate from the confines of the criminally insane institution. It seemed to be a nice way of saying, "to be continued".

As a side note, I noticed on the bus that it said something to the effect of "the people know something you don't know" and that there was a blue handicap logo on the front of the bus. Made me wonder, does the blue of Mr. Glass represent being handicapped.

--212.99.193.74 21:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've never taken it as based on anything. The ending just explains what happened to the characters in readiness for the forthcoming sequels (which are sadly not happening). violet/riga (t) 22:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

This movie is not based on any real-life event. But it is done so well, that a lot of people believe it really happened. This is not the first time that has happened. Similar rumors existed after Fargo and Titanic. And it is not based on any pre-existing comic book. The story was entirely created by the Director, and the comics highlighted in the movie (Sentryman for example) were created for the movie. 207.119.210.223 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Titanic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's based on the comic book concepts and I think it leaves to the imagination that the nefarious criminal can somehow escape or can operate from the confines of the criminally insane institution. It seemed to be a nice way of saying, "to be continued".

As a side note, I noticed on the bus that it said something to the effect of "the people know something you don't know" and that there was a blue handicap logo on the front of the bus. Made me wonder, does the blue of Mr. Glass represent being handicapped. --Wikisermons 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mr Glass is purple, not blue 198.6.46.11 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of speculation in this article, such as the name of uncreated future movies, which I am unable to find any citations for. I am refactoring. If you provide a citation, they can be re-added. --DDG 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Other than fan-speculation that it sounds like a superhero name, is there really any basis for suggesting "midnight rider" would be an adopted moniker for David? Seems highly dubious to me. --VM 02:48 3rd September 2006 (gmt)

Hmm. This is not a great wuality writeup. Ive tried to fix some but it relaly needs work. It doesnt even mention David's son?

Yeah. and the seplling is awufl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.166.67 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone keeps changing the line that "David then kills the maniac" to "David chokes out the maniac". "Chokes out" sounds like he just renders him unconcious, but David definitely kills him. The newspaper he shows his son at the end of the film says "3 dead" (father, mother and home invader") and, if you have a zoom feature on your DVD player or a high-def screen, you can clearly read in the article that says, roughly, "upon freeing the children, the unknown samaritan struggled with the invader, killing him." In addition, the shooting script makes it clear that the invader is killed. I don't know the motivation for this constant change, but I'll assume it's not to try to hide that David is a killer, but that the person wants to make it clear that choking was the manner of death, so I've changed it to "David then chokes the maniac to death". - dharmabum 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Also 'Chokes Out' sounds like it was written by a retard. ~Anon

Retarded or not, "chokes out" is the common term for the technique (most famously found in Judo) of applying strong pressure to both sides of the neck, which cuts off the flow of blood to the brain, leading to weakness, disorientation, and unconsciousness. The technique is non-lethal (unless maintained for 5+ minutes?), and the symptoms usually disappear in a matter of seconds after the choke hold is released. Choke holds do not usually involve cutting off the air supply, since this carries a risk of doing serious damage (collapsed trachea.) I'm not disputing whether David killed the guy; I'm just clarifying that the term is valid and implies a non-lethal submission hold. --Lode Runner 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Accurate or not, it certainly sounds odd in the context of the article. It's suddenly using fairly specific terminology that most people wouldn't know, and if you *don't* know it (as I'd argue most people won't) it sounds ridiculous rather than an unfamiliar term. It's a bad use of language in the article. I'd also question if it's accurate - is that really what David does in the film? Tim 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's *that* obscure--it's a simple adaptation of the phrase "knocked out". And what's the alternative? "Applied a choke hold until the intruder was incapacitated"? That wording sounds much more ridiculous to me. If he actually was choked out (I'm NOT saying that he was or wasn't. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I can't comment either way), then that's what the article should say, perhaps with a link to chokehold to clarify the meaning of the term. Of course, since I have no reason to doubt Dharmabum420's observations this is likely a moot point; nevertheless, I do take issue with people attacking the term itself. There's no other verb that describes the successful application of a non-lethal choke hold (verbs like "strangle" strongly imply a fatal outcome.) --Lode Runner 08:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

How the intruder was killed is irrelevant, the important thing to note is that he was killed 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is another connection between this movie and the classic Thor's dual nature.

Walt Simonson had a lengthy storyline in which Thor was cursed with a brittle bone condition very similar to that suffered by Mr. Glass. The curse also prevented Thor from healing or dying form his injuries. By the climax he was reduced to a fleshy blob within a suit of armor, then taking over the body of The Destroyer to get Hel to remove the curse. He then went on to give Loki, the instigator of the curse, a broken arm. This gave Loki a taste of his own medicine and conveyed that Thor, after a few millenia, was getting tired of Loki's crap and it could just as easily have been his skull.

"David goes on to save more lives with his powers, although we are not shown exactly who he becomes." I didn't follow through with his life, only that he got Elijah Price committed.--Wikisermons 06:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unless there will be some form of confirmation on the sequel titles, Unbeatable and Unstoppable, I think I'd be proper to delete them. It's terribly misleading, and I can find no evidence on the net that this, in any way, is true. If the poster who wrote this can't find a source to back it up, I will proceed to delete it if nothing shows up in 2 weeks. GofferOffer 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to: http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/unbreakable/77.html

No Unbreakable Trilogy In Shyamalan's Future Plans

M. Night Shyamalan has dismissed rumors that his current film, Unbreakable, is actually the first part of a trilogy. In an interview with the online edition of Britain's Empire magazine, Shyamalan remarked, "I'm definitely not the kind of guy who wants to do sequels or be known for just one type of movie. I want each movie to be very, very original, the most original movie you can think of." Reports of a possible trilogy were touched off by comments made by Unbreakable star Bruce Willis on Nov. 6, when he remarked during a chat on the Yahoo! Web site, "Unbreakable is the first part of a trilogy of films. I can't tell you about the others, but we're supposed to do two more. You'll understand how it lends itself to a continuing story." Shyamalan did not rule out a possible sequel, commenting that if he was to do another film with the same characters in Unbreakable, "then it would have to be a whole revisiting of the idea in a different way. But I have no plans for that right now. It's certainly not going to be the next movie."

--IMDB

There are a number of points brought up in the plot section that seem to be wrong or repeated in other paragraphs in the same section. I'm going to watch the film again and try to come back to this section; a full rewrite might be in order. Katalaveno 03:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's also the matter of how the tense of the writing keeps changing from present to past, making the plot summary sound amateurish. I'll endeavour to make my way through this and clean things up so the grammar is actually uniform. Eastmav 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The plot section never mentions that Elijah Price is also known as Mr. Glass, so that when Mr. Glass is mentioned later in the article it is not clear that it is referring to the same character. Exaxw (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the film and then drawing comparisons to comic book motifs is the definition of original research or original thought. "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source". I have removed the entire section "Comic book references" because of this. If there is some article out there that makes this comparison it should be cited... but you just can't cite your own comparisons. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Wikipedia:Attribution. 69.72.2.72 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I quit. 71.203.244.64 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unbreakable (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. On the whole the article is very good. I have only a few comments to make at this point, although I may add some more. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments

• The lead is the weakest part of the article, and could be more clearly worded. For example:

• "After conceiving Unbreakable to be a definitive origin story" - perhaps this could be better worded

Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Dunn <> David - it is confusing that you sometimes call by his first name, then his last name.
• some odd wording in the article:

Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• "Shyamalan has heavily considered developing a sequel."

Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• "Cult filmmaker and comic book writer Kevin Smith felt Unbreakable was briefly similar to a comic book titled The Mage."

Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• "(Signs, The Village, etc)" - not good to use abbreviations, such as etc.
• "In September 2008" - do you mean - as of September 2008?

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I added the isbn for The Making of Unbreakable, 2001 but page numbers are needed for each of the six references

Ugh, that wasn't a book. It was a DVD documentary. I probably should have cited it better. My bad. Wildroot (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• As the 70.208.161.72 has said below, the statement "Shyamalan wrote Unbreakable as the first installment of a trilogy" is not supported by the source, nor are the subsequent statements. I have changed the material to match the source you have given.
• I am placing the article on hold while we fix these few issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article needs other cleanup (I have done some but it probably needs more):

• There was a good deal of fan pro-film POV inserted into this article re: Unbreakable being a financial success. 95 mill domestic is way short of a profit for a 75 mill film. The budget + advertising probably means break even was around 200 mill (100 mill cost, 200 mill profit - 100 mill going to theater owners) I have removed such statements so we can at least have a neutral POV WP:NPOV

What about foreign profit and the successful DVD sales? I don't claim to be an expert on this type of box-office-to-profit-ratio stuff, but I just wanna know what you think about the additional moola. =) Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Newspaper opinion pieces seem to be used for statements of fact re: "'Unbreakable drew universal praise from comic book writers/artists and aficionados" WP:RELIABLE

The reference came from Entertainment Weekly with an interview from M. Night Shyamalan. There were also a group of highly-celebrated comic book veterans interviewed on the DVD "making-of" feature (Will Eisner, Alex Ross, etc.) Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• No ref as to this film having a "cult status"

Removed. That was on here before I began to work on the article, so it probably goes under WP:OR. Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Reference does not support statement "Shyamalan wrote Unbreakable as the first installment of a trilogy", in fact it says the opposite and the whole section seems to rely on Synthesis. Whole section may have no merit. (partial cleanup)

70.208.161.72 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)— 70.208.161.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply

Sorry about that, I must have read Shy's quote wrong. But it looks like you fixed it. Awesome! Wildroot (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written   b (MoS): Follows MoS  

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable   c (OR): No OR  

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context   b (focused): Remains focused on subject  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

Congradulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted the revert of my clean up because of the following problems. "Unbreakable drew universal praise from comic book writers/artists" and "cult film status" are WP:PEACOCK and are only supported by the opinion of Scott Brown and Casey Seijas and "cult film status" is not supported at all by the Casey Seijas cite (WP:V). In general these editorial pieces cannot be used for statement of fact WP:RELY. Implying that movie was successful during its opening run has no supporting citation and the math is against it being a success ($66.3 million or the total $95 million GROSS domestic run on a $75 million film is definitely not a success or even break even during the opening run, such things are measured in NET, not GROSS) (WP:V, WP:NPOV).

The Sequels section only documents internet/film fan site rumors, and maybe some hype by Shyamalan. Shyamalan himself states he did not plan a sequel. It has been rewritten to better reflect the sources provided and clearly reflect who said what. The section should reflect what the sources say, and not be about some supposed sequel supported by citation synthesis. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made a section for TV appearances. If anybody knows any other TV appearances Unbreakable has been on, please add to the section. Mackerni888 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Movies are shown on different television stations all the time. That a certain film airs on a certain channel isn't particularly noteworthy. Sorry, but I've removed the section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the proposed sequel section it mentions quite a few times that Disney was not interested in making a sequel because the film performed poorly at the box office. But elsewhere it says the film grossed 248 million. That's a lot, especially against a 75m budget. Does anyone know if this was mostly DVD sales and could research and reference it to reconcile the facts? Or if there is another reason Disney didn't want to produce the sequel? JesseRafe (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree. There is a complete and jarring inconsistency between the two sections. No one has addressed this since 2011? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

My reasoning is: 1) It doesn't pertain directly to this movie 2) Readers of this article should be prepared for spoilers of this movie. But it seems inappropriate to reveal plot twists from a different movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.246.60.1 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps enough? Read WP:CENSORED alongside WP:SPOILERS. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I started this section and made the unsigned edit (167.246.60.1) above. Sorry about that. I see that three others have removed this spoiler in the last few days, and it has been reverted every time. I'm open to discussion but could we agree to leave the spoiler out until we've resolved this?

A few points:

1. This is not censorship because I'm not a government.
2. Nor do I find the spoiler objectionable. I don't find any spoiler objectionable, on the page for the movie being spoiled. I agree that there is encyclopedic value to the spoiler in question. I only object to its placement in this article.
3. WP:SPOILERS is not in question here. It is simply not Wikipedia's standard practice to give away endings to movies in the opening summary of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasi2290 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

1 .Re-read WP:CENSOR.

2. and 3. I don't even see the spoiler, frankly. In any case, it seems relevant to the lead. Try WP:LEAD.

In any case, you are not supposed to revert a restore of removed information without gaining clear consensus first. See WP:BRD.

I am not "borderline edit warring". You mixed me up with yourself. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why does the first paragraph contain spoilers? There is no need to describe Elijah as "manipulative," and it's also unnecessary to say that Dunn "learns the true nature of Elijah Price." Could you please remove these notes from the first paragraph, and only include it under the chapter "Plot"? 2601:405:100:E440:2DEB:1739:E537:A03C (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Declined These are plot elements that can be placed in the lead. Wikipedia does not bow to attempts to censor its spoilers. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the documentation of {{Edit semi-protected}} says clearly: "For any change that might be controversial, obtain consensus before placing the template". You ignored this in yet another attempt to censor Wikipedia, which fact is duly noted. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please do not include references to the Split cameo and connections in the opening paragraph. Wikipedia generally does not approve of spoilers in the overview sections of films. - Darkhawk

@Darkhawk:, Read WP:SPOILER. DarkKnight2149 21:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Unbreakable (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115075126/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/18/samuel-l-jackson-m-night-shyamalan-on-the-unbreakable-sequel-that-never-was-but-might-be/ to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/18/samuel-l-jackson-m-night-shyamalan-on-the-unbreakable-sequel-that-never-was-but-might-be/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425235248/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/02/22/bruce-willis-says-m-night-shyamalan-still-thinking-about-unbreakable-2/ to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/02/22/bruce-willis-says-m-night-shyamalan-still-thinking-about-unbreakable-2/

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) 15:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where it says who Samuel L Jackson played in the film. It pretty much tells you the ending. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindfoam (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does. An encyclopedia article on a film will likely tell you all about Luke's father, Rosebud and Keyser Söze. They'll also tell you Jesus comes back to life and the Titanic sinks. Please see WP:SPOILER. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply