Talk:Crank (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Beijing Cocktail

Hey, it would be cool if someone could weigh in on the medical plausibility of this film's premise.

[edit] YouTube

They're using YouTube to advertise the movie quite heavily, both on the front page and by paying several well-known members --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis?

More like the entire screenplay.

I changed the title to "Expanded Plot". After watching the film, I attempted to write down as much of the plot I could remember and in what order. Obviously, I made a lot of spelling mistakes, and corrections have been made by other users. You are correct on the title, so I changed it. The section now needs more wikilinks and more details/corrections added that I missed or portrayed incorrectly. --Nehrams2020 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the plot is explained in maybe a little too much detail? Jamesino 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the Titanic plot overview? It's just as log if not longer. I agree the article could usme work but it's basically fine as is. Have a plot summary and a detailed version.--TylerXKJ 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Do you know what TL;DR means? Most people, at least the ones that I know, use wikipedia in reference to moves to see if they want to watch it, not read it. I think it needs to be cut down at least in half. I'll gladly edit it, but I won't do so until there seems to be some semblance of ... agreement ... as to how this section should be treated. 3R1C 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No CGI?

In the trivia section it links to an interview where it was claimed there was no CGI or wirework in this film. I just saw it last night and there clearly was. Can anyone shed any light on this? Did they get some more funding from somewhere? If someone could add any information to this matter it would be great. Alexforcefive 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The only CGI I saw were the retro video game shots/pixelart in the credits, and the subtitles. What I think they meant by CGI was no CGI explosions and the like...and there weren't any.
from the Trivia section: "There are no explosions in the movie, even when a grenade is involved." I think this could be better worded, since the grenade did explode, only the fireball-and-smoke explosion was not seen (and even what could be seen could count as "explosion"). Anyway, I don't think the shots of the main character's heart are live action. --Greenb 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"Put the camera in peril and put the actors in peril and do a lot of real stuff and stay away from CG if you can. [...] [Statham] wanted to kind of get away from some of the CG wirework that he was doing before. [...] He wanted to do all his own stunts and keep it real." (from here) The rest of that interview seems to say what the source in the article already said: no CGI- or wire-assisted stunts. I'll change the trivia bit to "...and no wires or CGI were used for the stunt scenes" now. Greenb 12:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: Grenades don't ussually result in a fireball. Most grenades use shrapnel to kill people. Big orange fireballs are a hallmark of gas explosions and hollywood. Since using anything other then gas could result in a lot of shrapnel resulting in someone getting hurt. Gas is easy to get, fairly controllable and looks good on film. While other incidiries and true explosives are dangerous and less visually attractive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.54.207 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC).


the end wasnt cgi? wow

Nope it wasn't. It was a simple composite shot. CGI = computer generated image. The ending was probably just Jason Statham in front of a blue/green screen and the background would be filmed from a heli or even another zooming image from google earth. Aetherfukz 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The only possible CGI I saw were the heart scenes. It could have used some touching up on the special effects though, like when he was standing on the car in the mall, that was obviously in front of a green screenDarkAvenger280 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Ending

I have read many different interpretations of the ending of this film, including whether or not he died (there is a blink and a heartbeat heard after the screen goes dark), and whether the body bounced or not (some say that Verona fell on the car, then Chev fell in front of the camera, making it look like he bounced). Should the end maybe say that it is not clear, whether that was intentional by the directors or not? Patinthehat1 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was alive when I watched the ending, even though it would be unbelievable for him to survive a fall from such a height. I would say you should go ahead and add a section about the ending, and more details can be added and touched up once its submitted. I plan on watching the film again in the next week or two, and I'll have to look really close to add any more details I discover.--Nehrams2020 02:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are some points I'd like to pick out about the ending: It was certainly Chev who hit the car, as anyone falling right on to pavement would splatter - it is realistic that he would bounce falling onto a car from that height, as the suspension would take in the energy and recoil...as for his death (or lack thereof)...
The doctor mentions Chev falling into a coma, but not specifically dying (now that he has competing chemicals in his body). When Chev enters the room of the elderly patient in the hospital, the patient is fashioned to look just like Chev, except old and with a moustache. He appears to be sleeping (and is in some kind of life support), but it could be interpreted that he's in a coma.
When Chev is in the cab with the haitian man, he looks over and sees a child that bears a remarkable resemblence to himself - Eve commented earlier that she forgot to take her birth control pills. The birth control comment was made AFTER the sex scene (brilliant by the way...were they really having sex? If not...incredible foley work there. Didn't even notice it the first time). Even though those last two points don't exactly relate directly to death, they're still a 'way out' for a sequal.
Again with the cab, when Chev takes the 'haitian shit' (contrast and compare with 'chinese shit'), the cab driver says 'give it time, devil'. There are no more strange effects that Chev percieves until his encounter with 'the grim reaper'. Personally, I think it was supposed to be 'the devil'. Considering that 'devil' is the name the haitian gives Chev, and the fact that it spoke with his own voice when saying "don't you know who I am?", I'd say it was at least one of the many interpretations of 'satan' out there.
Don Kim showing up right when Chev makes a gunshot with his finger, as well as the somewhat cliché romance scene beforehand (nevermind he miraculously gets a brand new suit) makes me think that perhaps Chev was already dreaming...already in a coma...and that's when we get to the 'ors'. The 'haitian shit' could have been the antidote, the additional injection could have been the 'antidote' as demonstrated by Chev's sudden rejuvenation, Chev could have been in a coma the whole movie (he never checks his phone for messages after the first call he recieves, right at the beginning), or he simply survived the fall thanks to the car.
One final point: at the ending, you never hear the heartbeat stop...it even fades into the credits...I think there are plenty of loopholes left in this movie, and I think they were all placed there intentionally so there could be a sequal. --Kojiro Takenashi 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Note on the dream-theory: after Chev is examined by the doctor and he tells him what the odds are, he (the doctor) says "Why don't you let me load you up with something and you can go out on a beautiful dream? Can I do that for you?". Chev says that is not what he'd want, but the doctor could have done it anyways. That would explain the following surrealistic scenes (elevator with the Chinese business man, roof, helicopter and the fall from the sky). --Gazongagizmo 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but the scene with the Japanese (I say he's Japanese) man could have been A) An encounter with "the devil" or B) a result of the haitian drug cocktail.--71.68.219.177 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"I say he's Japanese" Whatever, they all look alike (just kidding).
Well, encountering the devil doesn't contradict the dream theory. Nor the Video Game theory (see below). I think the movie makers put numerous clues to different, maybe even contradicting theories into the movie deliberately to ensure vivid discussion about the interpretation of the movie. It's pretty en vogue nowadays in combination with an open ending (as well as an ending leading to possible sequels, in case the movie does well at the box office)... Gazongagizmo 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taglines

I think the last tagline for the movie is incomplete in the section for that. I believe in the commercials, the full tagline is "Drugs. Sex. Adrenaline. He'll do anything to keep it up."

This tagline is based off one of the movie posters. --Nehrams2020 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Theory

After the credits rolled there is a sort of bonus ending in style of an 80s arcade videogame which led me to form a theory after which the whole movie is just a video game that maybe in fact Chev developed - he had told Eve he was a videogame developer after all. And let's face it, if you could live one day as a videogame, it probably would look like a mixture of Crank and GTA.

There are other hints at this video game theory as well, e.g. that certain things could be seen as a video game-like "power boost items", e.g. the epinephrine syringe, the energy drinks etc. I'm sure more hints to that theory will hit the eye when you rewatch it.

I just looked at the very beginning frame by frame and I'm fairly sure now that the whole movie is to be seen as a video game. Besides the pixel-like beating heart, in the very beginning there is a highscore screen, a few frames with source code and strange TV signals that could appear when switching whatever game console on.

I took the liberty of uploading the short arcade scene to youtube. And I uploaded the beginning to yousendit, so that you can download and view it frame by frame (yes, I AM very bored at the moment).

What about including this VG theory in the article page? Might help haters to appreciate the movie, if they think about it this way. Helped me to like it even more. --Gazongagizmo 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wondered this too, but actually I think it feels like a video game because it's an appalling movie with no plot, flat characters and it feels like a fourteen year old made it (that sex scene, jesus christ)
Then why are you on the talk page, you stiff? :P

[edit] Quality

I think the best way to improve the quality rating at this point would be to add a Reception section to the article. Rotten Tomatoes actually shows that this movie has a 60% fresh rating, which on RT is enough to actually consider it a Fresh movie. Entertainment Weekly in late January called the DVD one of the hot things for the week and referred to the movie as their number one guilty pleasure. Things like that. 71.232.25.117 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth

Was the use of Google Earth product placement? Or did the makers of the movie truly want to use it and were willing to go through whatever the licensing of those images entails? 71.125.143.167 01:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/a/Talk%7ECrank_%28film%29_5941.html"