Talk:Face/Off

Gina Gershon

"Gina Gershon as Sasha Hassler, Castor's former lover and the father of their son." Father?..

Forward slash

"The first challenge one confronts with Face/Off is the curious, I might even say misplaced, 'forward slash' in its title. Are 'Face' and 'Off' separate talents that the title has on its résumé? Is there a choice between 'face' and 'off' that we, or one of the movie's characters, are asked to make? Perhaps 'Off' is a computer file extension of the program 'Face.' The slash is even more confounding given the dizzying array of character and punctuation marks one has to choose from. Was Face%Off considered and rejected and, if so, why? How did the slash win out over the altogether more approachable * character, or even the ^? I find it most likely that the slash was a later accretion by an ambitious promotions person trying to make a name for herself. 'I'm the one who put the slash in Face/Off!' one can almost hear her bragging, completely oblivous to the soupy haze of confusion she created."

—Michael J. Nelson, Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese, pp. 45-46

Actually it is very simple, Woo put the slash in the title after others said that the movie may get confused for a hockey movie. "Dylan Porter"

Faces got slashed off, so it's a Face Slash-off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The line "possibly the best chase scene ever filmed" strikes me as this authors opinion. If it's not simply a case of someone praising something he or she likes, can we see a source here, please? --Ryl 09:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryl, but not with Michael J. Nelson as the / is clearly present in the movie poster on the article. That one line has caused someone to put a NPOV dispute sign over an otherwise pretty good article. Dessydes 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and reworded. I've taken off the NPOV template, but I haven't gone over the article with a fine-toothed comb. --Grocer 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Castor/Troy

Throughout, Archer is referred to as Archer. Troy starts off being referred to as such, but then the article switches between Castor and Troy, in a slightly confusing way. Wouldn't it be better to refer to the character as Troy all the way through, like Archer? 212.108.17.165 14:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Castor Troy should probably be referred to as Castor through the entire article, as there are two "Troys" in the film. Referring to him only as Troy could cause confusion. Schoop 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased review masquerading as disinterested article

Whoever wrote the original article removed a brief critical comment I added about a week ago. At first, I was astounded to find my comment deleted summarily; however, when I reread the original article, I realized that it is not really a disinterested, informative, professional article, but rather a puff piece masquerading as an article, possibly by someone connected with "Face/Off" and its continued financial success who saw my comment as a threat to that success. I note that a special DVD version of "Face/Off" is scheduled for release this year. While I understand that there's always a bit of an author's self-interest lurking in all articles, the article for this movie (I can't bring myself to call it a film) is steeped in unwarranted praise. Indeed, "Face/Off" has so much wrong with it from an artistic standpoint that my criticism was modest compared to what an intelligent, educated, experienced moviegoer could write.Cavan 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the comment was removed by 207.144.184.143, and I would feel he was probably right to do so. I'd check WP:NPOV. It's an opinion that the plot is silly, not a fact, and your paragraph was worded in such a way that it was clearly not neutral, but designed to criticise the film. Praising or criticising films is not what Wikipedia is for. If this is a commonly held opinion, you could word it along the lines of 'Despite its success, the film's plot has been criticised.' This would then require sourcing, preferrably with a link to a major review which mentions this. If you feel the article is unduly biased towards the film, it would be better to reword sections you feel are overly POV towards putting the film in a positive light into something more neutral. From a brief read, apart from the first couple of paragraphs, this article isn't too bad, though the first couple of lines could use work. Girdag 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

In the DVD releases, for some bizarre reason the bits with the switch blade are edited out. It is perplexing why you can show someone without a face, a serrated knife being jabbed into someones thigh, a child being shot, many men being shot and falling to their death, drug taking and an undercover FBI agent sucking on a drug dealers tongue, but, you can't show a switch knife!? Maybe this should be added here by someone else as I wont be able to do it from a non bias view. Maybe it isn't important... (thats what the FCC want you to think so they can continue their arbitrary and unwarranted censorship, I mean for christ sakes, its a DVD, if I buy it I want to watch it, what the hell are they doing disrupting the flow of the movie by arbitrarily taking parts out!?)

If u mean him giving the girl a switch blade, that is on the region 2 dvd I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addistheman (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Breaking up Plot

Someone edit it into paragraphs. It's a solid block of text.--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a complete rewrite. Noclip 14:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Face-Off (Movie Poster).jpg

Image:Face-Off (Movie 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 08:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I'm really in two minds about passing this one. Some small issues at first: the lead makes no mention about the plot, and I don't like cast names in the plot. The big issue here is the production section is tiny: I'll give you the benefit of a week to fatten it up. Alientraveller 09:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm failing this due to production section. IMDb trivia is an unreliable, user-submitted source. Try to find actual news articles from IMDb or Entertainment Weekly. Alientraveller 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Off Soundtrack Cover.jpg

Image:Off Soundtrack Cover.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.

Goofs

Can we get a cleanup on this? Do we really even need this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.50.187 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree. delete it all, i guess. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs a Cast section

a cast section is needed for this article, less it face deletion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.24.88 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Switchblade

That needs to be changed. Jamie recieves a butterfly knife (or a balisong) from Castor. When I attempted to edit that, it was imediately changed back to the incorect switchblade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.16.104 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

my apologies. I undid my reversion. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I had noticed it a while ago but I always feel uncomfortable about editing wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.16.104 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot/recap

"Archer is then taken to the hospital and his face is restored, with the exception of his chest scar — which served as a reminder of the loss of his son — as he doesn't "need it anymore", due to Castor's death."

My problem with this is although Archer knew Castor was in a coma, I would think that the REAL reason he didn't need the scar is that he gave Castor a loss almost or equal to his own when he dropped Pollux. 65.43.96.3 (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Though the time-period is never specified in the film and largely implied to be the present (...)"

Not true; Archer's son's grave is seen on-screen with the death taking place in 1991. Since the film takes place "six years later", the film must take place in 1997, futuristic tech and all. Habfan29 (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

These details have been excised to help rewrite the plot summary to better conform to WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM. What I'm here to discuss is the edits/reverts of 118.93.45.94 to my edits regarding the plot summary. The original plot summary was bloated to beyond 1000 (far too long for 99% of movies), so I took the time to trim it down to around 770 words. I've retained major details and plot points and have excised or shortened most minor details (the scar, Castor's behavior as Archer, etc.).

What I am asking is why my edits are being reverted by 118.93.45.94 to the original, overblown, plot summary with no edit summaries added to justify the edits. (Deftonesderrick 17:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

User:202.156.14.103, if you could please explain why you keep reverting to a longer, more overblown, plot summary that would be great... especially since you don't write anything in your edit summaries. I have been trying to keep the plot summary to a resonable length without too many details, yet, like 118.93.45.94, you keep editing it back to the overblown version. Please give your two cents here and we can come up with a solution. (Deftonesderrick 16:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

This page is a complete mess

has this page been vandalised? Its full of incomplete sentences and random names of characters and actors, which make following the complex plot virtually impossible. Unfortunately its some years since I saw this movie and I'm not familiar enough with the plot to fix the article. Can someone fix it?The Yowser (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

This film is spy-fi,not science fiction.That's why let's call this film spy-fi. Bendybit 09:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Spy-Fi (subgenre) is a subgenre of science fiction, so it makes no real difference here. Also this film was a hit in the 24th Saturn Awards which only iclude "science fiction, fantasy and horror film". To summarize:

• One of its actors was nominated for the Best Performance by a Younger Actor/Actress award. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films Contact – Jena Malone, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Mimic, Jungle 2 Jungle – Sam Huntington, A Simple Wish. Most of which are science fiction films.
• Two of its actors we nominated for the Best Actor award. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films Tomorrow Never Dies, The Devil's Advocate, Men in Black, and the The Postman. Among them only The Devil's Advocate is not a science fiction film.
• One of its actors was nominated for the Best Supporting Actress award. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films Titanic, Scream 2, Tomorrow Never Dies, The Fifth Element, Alien: Resurrection. Most of which are science fiction films.
• The film won the Best Director award among science fiction film. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films Alien: Resurrection, Men in Black, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers, and Contact. All of them are science fiction films and all of them were considered inferior to Face/Off.
• The film was nominated for the Best Music award. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films Men in Black – Danny Elfman, Contact, Commandments, Gattaca, Tomorrow Never Dies. Most of them are science fiction films, though Commandments seems to be a fantasy film.
• The film won the Best Writer award for its screenwriters. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films Contact, The Devil's Advocate, Men in Black, Mimic, and Starship Troopers . Most of which are science fiction films, with the exception of the The Devil's Advocate.
• The film was nominated for the Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film by science fiction fans. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films L.A. Confidential, Breakdown, The Game, Titanic, and Tomorrow Never Dies. Most of them are known for their science fiction elements.
• The film's make up artists were nominated for the Best Make-Up award. In this category, the film was listed alongside the films Mimic, Men in Black, Batman & Robin, Spawn, and The Devil's Advocate. About half of them are science fiction films and the others are fantasy films.

The awards are presented by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films, which dedicated itself "to the advancement of science fiction, fantasy, and horror in film, television, and home video". It typically does not bother with most other genres. I think they are a pretty good source. Dimadick (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Face/Off have minor sci-fi elements,but this film is not science fiction film.This film was not nominated for a Saturn Award for "Best Science Fiction Film". Bendybit (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC

Again with "minor sci-fi elements". The entire plot of the film depends on highly experimental face transplant (which was considered medically impossible until 2005), body swap, and identity loss. These are far more common in science fiction that action films. As someone who has seen this film, I find your assessment rather puzzling.

Also your definition of genre disagrees with out sources and external links.

• The Internet Movie Database lists the genres of the film as "Action", "Crime", "Sci-Fi", and "Thriller".
• Box Office Mojo lists the genre as "Sci-Fi Chase" and includes the film in a long list of sci-fi chase films. From what I can see it includes science fiction films with action elements.
• RogerEbert.com lists the genres of the film as "Action", "Crime", "Science Fiction", and "Thriller".
• Metacritic lists the genres of the film as "Action", "Sci-Fi", "Drama", "Thriller", and "Crime".

So we are far from the only websites which considers this to be science fiction. Dimadick (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)