Talk:Independence Day (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.
High
This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.

Contents

[edit] Scientific Fallacy or movie hype?

I was just curious, in the synopsis it says that the UFO was 1/4 the mass of the moon. But according to astrophysics, something with that mass would not be able to orbit the Earth at such a close range... It would smash into the Earth at the orbital elevation in the film... I was wondering this because the film just played on Comcast Detroit Channel recently and I got curious at the size of the thing and its proximity to the Earth. If it was really one quarter the mass of the Moon, it should be quite far just to prevent it from obliterating itself, let alone the Earth... Please reply with your thoughts and comments on this article, thanks (If you do so, post one copy here and one copy in my talk page, thanks...)! --Frithraes! 23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OOPS! I think I spoke too soon... I just noticed Criticisms and Goofs at the bottom and it appears my concerns were already raised, heh heh... --Frithraes! 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Anybody know why this film is often called "ID4"? I'm guessing the 4 comes from "July 4", which is Independence Day here in the United States, but if so, why? And if not, where the heck is it from? --Furrykef 09:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to IMDB it was a promotional abbreviation, nothing more. --Zerbey 21:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Was there really a commerical during Super Bowl XXIX? (The game was in January 1995, 18 months before the movie was released)--MGS 02:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==

[edit] Sequel?

No information on the proposed sequel, or at least why there has been no sequel to one of the biggest money earning films ever? I heard the sequel had the aliens returning this time with a new species as an ally, and there would be a ground invasion (like the far superior war of the worlds).

Where did you get that information? There are quite a few films with proposed sequels, but very few of these films ever hit the silver screen. There is a lot of contreversy going on right not as to the existence of a sequel to the film Hulk. Many people want it, but it's future is in doubt. I don't think that it is very different with this sequel. Scorpionman 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)s
SFX magazine. The Hulk sequel is happening with David Duchovny in the lead according to Metro. Magic Pickle 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
IF there is one, my guess would be that it would be about the resulting REBELLION of humanity against all of the world's governments as a result of the alien contact. Thanks to the likes of the Robertson Panel and the Brookings Report protocol, which state that people who see UFOs, aliens and the like, and/or interested in said forbidden subjects,are to be discredited and ridiculed, and IF there is alien contact, they'll revolt in real life, as will the religious people. Think about it. You and/or your buds see a UFO, aliens then you and/or your buds are called crazy, mentally ill, drunk, stupid idiots, worse, then there is alien contact, just like in this movie. Logic dictates that the people will revolt, as would you, to avenge yourself and restore your credibility and honor. Martial Law 20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :)

...right. So is there going to be a sequel? Magic Pickle 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I read an article about a sequel to this movie back in 1998 in a movie magizine that also talked about "Zathura". Considering it took them so long to make the "Zathura" movie, then a sequal to "ID4" is still plausible. The article stated that it would be a land fight with the surviving aliens. KyleDecker 09:38, November 2006

[edit] Silly inconsistencies

HEY! anybody know what that thing Is that The "Cable Guy" puts on his car that can hack him into herr cell at the white house? I've never heard a good explanation for this, does he secretly work for some uber-secret gov't agency or something?

Anyone ever notice that in one scene, the president says to his wife that a helicopter will take her to "Nellis" (as in Nellis Air Force Base), and a bit later the president says that there is no Area 51? -- Myria 23:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Nellis is not the same as Area 51 - it is an officially designated Air Force range in Nevada. Nellis is enormous (the largest military facility in the United States, AFAIK) and Area 51 is just one facility within it. There is no inconsistency here.

Area 51 is the Groom Lake Air Force Base. GreatGatsby 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when he says "Nellis" he is referring to Nellis Air Force Base (which is of course located within the Nellis Range).Crazed actor 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Plotwise, it seems like the president's plane takes 12 hours to go from Washington, DC to Area 51. Must be run by United. -- Myria 23:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The president would stay aloft aboard Air Force 1 indefinitely - until they determined a safe place to land. The plane can refuel in mid-air. They obviously did not immediately decide to go to Area 51. --Dan East July 4, 2005 01:59 (UTC)
They were originally headed for NORAD (in Colorado) but it was destroyed before they got there, at which point they changed course for Area 51. Battle Ape 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

-The aliens' superweapon is pitiful. They can travel some gazillion miles to Los Angeles and yet their weapon is so lame. Hydrogen bombs are quicker and more destructive. The bomb the humans used on Houston was more powerful than what the aliens already did to it. -- Myria 23:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-Yes, but that weapon was much cooler than a lame nuke. In a movie that's what counts.

-Also I may add, The aliens' Weapons of mass destruction are designed to damage ONLY their foe's stance. Never could the alien beam ray affect their own ship. Unless a Banzai crop duster crashes his F-15 into the energy core of course.. [Héctor Lara, México. 16:53 -6 GTM, 2 Oct 2005]

Wasn't the alien's purpose to use our world's resources? Hence it would be pretty stupid of them to use nuclear weapons, as that would potentially ruin organically-based resources like plants and animals. Moreover, it was also stated in the movie that the alien's had "comparable tolerances to heat and cold", which suggests that they are very similar to us; wouldn't radiation be harmful to them as well?
If their intent was just to destroy us, I would agree with the assessment that the weapon is "pitiful". However, since they are attempting to conquer us for the purpose of resources, I think it is fair to say that it was more than effective. It was clearly simple plan that probably would have worked had it not been for the resistance fighters; take over satellite network, blast large cities and military bases with superweapons, mop up resistance with fighters, and then land ground troops and start pillaging.

I think their plot to take the world's resouces comes from the fact that people often forget that not all of the world's people live in big cities, they would strip off the urban areas and take over the rural areas.- kyem2010

--Ihmhi 10:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The weapon is far from pitiful - it destroys (almost) all life in cities, leaving the enormous refined metal deposits ready for extraction and non-radioactive. It's pretty nifty...213.86.59.92 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no airlock mechanism on the mega-ship at the end, yet there are aliens happily standing around waiting for the invasion. Then there is the matter of standing while in orbit... -- Myria 23:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- The novelization hinted that they were standing around in a forcefield of some sort that shielded them from the vacuum. And that second bit could probably be written off through use of a SF staple, the artificial gravity generator. CABAL 08:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weren't they also wearing those kinda biological suit things? I assumed that had something to do with it ... Yar Kramer 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The suits are mainly for protection. They still need to get oxygen from somewhere. CABAL 11:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Being that the suits were biological they could have advance forms of plantlife to filter the carbon dioxide, and since organic cells move so close together in such large numbers the aliens are kept in an airtight artificial ecosystem which should produce all of their needs. - KyleDecker 08:56, July 5, 2006 (UTC)
I thought their ship had 1/4 the mass of the moon or something... Plenty of gravity there for both. - Omegatron 22:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Most of the ship is hollow, so there's no..."centralized" center of gravity within the craft. CABAL 10:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What are the odds that the controls of the captured ship make any sense to earthlings? -- Myria 23:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pretty good, considering they had one lying around in Area 51 for a few years... --Librarian Brent 04:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Decades, actually. :D Yar Kramer 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the point Myria was making was that Aliens wouldn't not be so similar to humans that their technology would be so easily controlled. For example, if there was an intelligent dolphin, how would it be able to drive a car? -Lengis

Why, with its fins, of course! Batkins 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice, you never got a full shot of the aliens.

[edit] Terrorism?!

Subsequently, some critics have pointed out that the film features acts of terrorism by humans against the would-be alien occupiers. That is to say, resistance by hastily-assembled non-military personnel using unorthodox techniques against better-armed outsiders intent on securing access to natural resources. Such acts of terrorism, such critics say, should not be shown in a positive light in the post-11 September 2001 environment.

This sounds dubious with regard to the events that transpired in the film. The aliens attacked the humans first, with the ultimate intent of completely annihilating all human life. Terrorism, as defined by Mirriam-Webster, is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion", which doesn't really sound like how the humans retaliated against the invaders in the movie. --DXI 04:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

- This is a joke. I don't see how it was 'terroism'. The aliens were hellbent on the total destruction of the human race. Not to mention that it was wartime, and i dont remember anyone specificly targeting civlians. If anything, it is the Aliens who should be criticised for terroisms.

- One might draw parallels between the human's use of the weaponry available to them against the aliens in this film and the Iraqi insurgency's tactics against the US occupation and question whether the human defense in this film is 'terrorism' or whether the Iraqi insurgency is a legitimate defense against an unjustified attack against technologically superior outside forces (given that the pre-war rationale of WMD's has fallen apart). Not saying that this is a valid comparison, just that one might view it that way.

Good arguement (and very interesting), but I don't see how anyone could sympathize with the invaders and call what the humans did "terrorism", especially when you consider the tone of the movie. The aliens struck first, and the humans fought back, pure and simple. Still, what you said is definitely worth talking about on this talk page, but it should probably remain off of the main article page itself. --DXI 1 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
I think whoever criticized the humans in the film of terrorism is really misinformed. The aliens are the terrorists, because they attacked Earth and destroyed many of its major cities. We simply fought back. Of course, someone might say that in the same way the U.S. military are the "aliens", and that the people who struck back at them are the "heroes" of this film. But I don't make that comparison. The intentions of the U.S. in real life and the aliens in this film are very different. Scorpionman 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I tihnk that we can draw a distinct line between 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighters' based on their intent, rather than their actions.

If a man shoots a soldier invading his home, then he is a freedom fighter, but if he comes to the soldiers home country, and shoots him in his own home, then he is a terrorist.

Did anyone else find it ironic that the WTC could withstand an alien attack from a 15 mile wide spaceship, but not a medium sized civilian passenger jet? -Lengis
Some weapon!. Scorpionman 01:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hardly, the aliens are obviously more intelligent, and if they've been drifting from planet to planet, they could easily have billions of years of recorded history behind them, I doubt they thought very much about the various species that might be living on the planet already, anymore than then you'd have second thoughts about knocking down an ant hill, the invasion of Iraq is really an unrelated event, a first world country losing a war to a third world country may be an embarrassment, but it has nothing to do with this--172.151.168.44 16:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Inconsistancy

The article states, at one point:

One of the flaws in this is that the aliens fighter craft are also affected by the virus, craft that would seem to have little purpose in "interfacing" with any satellite

Granted, however it was stated by Jeff Goldblun's character in the movie that once the virus was fed into the mothership, it would stream down into all of the smaller ships, which would obviously include the fighters. The commands in the virus could have send a simple "off" command for the shields and/or wrecked the command console system in the mothership (hence the laughing "Jolly Roger" graphic), which would explain why the shields would have been down a few minutes.

Even if this were not mentioned in the movie, it was clearly stated that the sattellite system was used for getting around the problem of line-of-sight for the aliens. While one could say that it would be more plausible for each fighter to be jacked into its mothership, it is equally plausible that each fighter maintained a connection to the satellites (or possibly both).

I think I have sufficiently proved that this is not a flaw to anyone who has payed attention to the movie. I must have seen it a dozen times, so this really stood out to me when I read the article and I thought I should point out my views on the matter.

--Ihmhi 10:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I hadn't seen this movie since I was like...6 or 7. I just rented it and, I was suprised. This is a good movie.

Maybe, but I still think that War of the Worlds is better. Scorpionman 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Goofs

Removed the following: *The United States flag placed on the moon by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is no longer standing. It was knocked over by Armstrong's and Aldrin's take off in the Lunar Module.

The reason: A new flag was later put in place by the crew of Apollo 17 (if my mind serves me right). Bjelleklang - talk 21:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Tranquility Base [Sea of Tranquility], or any other location on the moon, were never revisited. Each Apollo crew placed a flag on the moon (six in all), but they are at different sites separated by hundreds and hundreds of miles.

[edit] silly inconsistencies

I hae a questions about the Washington Monument. How come the Monument isn't damaged by the destroyer? It is too low, because the Monument is 555 feet tall.


Oh, it was. It wasnt seen on screen, though. - G. Freeman

[edit] Some Things overlooked.

1. Didn't anyone pick up on the fact since the aliens were an analogue of socialist insects, with a hive mentality, that their computers would have no defenses whatsoever to an attack, since none of them would be acting counter productively to the commune? Thusly, once someone was able to reverse engineer the basic operation of their processor codes, writing a very crippling virus would be a cinch!

Uh, no. They lived by 'stripping worlds' - inhabited worlds, presumably. Thus, however cohesive their own culture, they could expect multifaceted resistance. They should have expected resistance - they subverted Earth satelites and expected it not to be done back to them? They were just dumb. Even though they could cross interstellar space with such huge craft. Hmm, either that or that's a PLOT HOLE.213.86.59.92 17:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Error on Errors: "How the destroyers can inexplicably know the locations of the cities they destroyed before coming here or settle perfectly over seemingly pre-selected landmarks seems a mystery. However, the alien craft and preserved aliens in Area 51 as well as Russell Case mentioning in the film that he was abducted and had experiments carried out on him suggests that the invaders have had their eye on Earth for some time." Please ponder unscrambled sattelite signals of an education nature that have at least reached out 35 light years from earth by now. Assuming the mother ship was doing 35c, that would still give the aliens a year to prepare for the invasion. And what do you see when these cities are shown (perhaps on PBS in the 70s?), the most famous landmarks, and their alignment. They chose buildings that when vaporized, would have the best chance to propogate the shockwave down fairly unrestricted streets, to maximize the damage potential.

A simple probe and interrogation of the internet through satelites would give all this information. Very easily. You'd look it up on W/P. Possibly the alien fighter that had been here 50 years before the movie had something to do with this as well.213.86.59.92 17:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Big error on an error! "An F-18 can never maneuver through the Grand Canyon, even at minimum speed." I would presume was written by somebody who has never been to the grand canyon. In most places it is more than 1 mile across rim to rim. Even near the river, it seldomly gets tighter than 100 yards. Also, due to some "sensitve" terrain following radar technology, it could manouver in much tighter spaces than the real canyon. Also, in the movie, it's not shown that this is the grand canyon. There are hundreds of starkly beautiful canyons within 300 miles of there that it could have been. And besides, the Grand Canyon is not between Los Angeles, and Groom Lake, at least not with a very circuitous route, and there is no salt-flat/dry lake near it. I am more prone to thinking this canyon is somewhere near Death Valley / Calico, California, which lines up nicely with salt-flats/dry-lakes and the route between Los Angeles, and Area 51.

4. Another error in the errors section states "The recon vehicle observing the attack on Houston is shown standing still while other vehicles are being blown away. In reality, due to its proximity to the destroyer, it should have been destroyed." First off, this is a very heavy, armored, and probably that armor is supplimented by lead shielding, denser vehicle. It would probably even without the lead behave as shown, as battle field nuclear weapons have been considdered in all vehicle designs since the early days of the cold war. Also, in reality, Nuclear weapons do not produce EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) unless exploded in space, or at least high up in the ionosphere. However, for a brief period there is a STRONG flux of ionizing radiation, that would temorarily cripple computers and disable night vision intensifiers. I strongly protest this "Error" for it is probably the most accurate sequence in the whole film.

There is more I find at fault with this entry, but these are the blatant errors.

69.146.51.139 00:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Zaphod

Additionally (to #4), the APC may have been very far away from ground zero and most of the more severe effects of the nuclear blast were too distant to really affect it. Plus there's the matter of the yield of the device and how its interaction with the shields could affect everything. And there's the reference in the article to Houston having already been destroyed before the nuclear attack, but it seemed to me that they had picked to attack the alien ship before it had destroyed Houston. Radivil 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wow, so many errors!

I have made several corrections, mostly in the form of deletions, to this movie page.

Where to begin?

In the plot summary, the author states that the captured alien fighter was recovered from the Roswell crash in 1947. First of all, the base at Area 51 didn't exist in 1947 (the wreckage and bodies were supposedly transported to Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, and stored there in the legendary Hangar 18). But more importantly, the character of the Defense Secretary in the film points to the craft and exclaims, "That thing is a wreck! It crash landed back in the 50's!" So, the film specifically states that the fighter didn't come from Roswell. Most likely, the author was confused by the statement that character Julius Levinson makes aboard Air Force One about how the government should have been prepared for the alien attack because of "that thing that you found, in New Mexico."

In the Criticism section, the author states that the alien fighters have little reason to interface with satellites, and therefore shouldn't have been affected by the computer virus planted in the mother ship. While it may be true that the fighters wouldn't have been "infected" by interfacing with satellites, they surely would have been connected to and receiving instructions from the mother ship, and thus would have received the virus directly. Note - I see that this was already pointed out by user ImhmI.

The name is "Ihmhi". Is it really that hard to spell? d: --Ihmhi 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Unless you're born in India or Utah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.155.79 (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

In the Trivia section, someone stated that character Russell Casse's line, "I picked a hell of a week to quit drinking," was a reference to the movie "Airplane!" While it is superficially similar to a series of running joke lines in that film, it is not worded in the same way, and therefore probably not a direct reference but simply a similar joke. The lines in "Airplane!" were, "Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit smoking/drinking/taking amphetamines/sniffing glue."

In the Goofs section, someone stated that the Roswell incident was "repeatedly referred to as having taken place in the 1950s." As I pointed out above, the movie never says this. Roswell is mentioned only once, in passing, and the movie specifically states the captured fighter did not come from Roswell. This is again likely the result of the author mistakenly connecting Levinson's Roswell comment to the captured craft kept at Area 51.

Finally, in the Goofs section, someone stated that "the F/A-18 can carry at max 4 missiles." This is not the case. The F/A-18C (the model depicted in the film) can carry a total of 8 air-to-air missiles: 2 on each wingtip, 2 under each wing (one on each inboard and outboard pylon), and 2 on the fuselage stations (1 on either side).

Sorry for the long-winded rant, but what's the point of a page for a movie if it isn't accurate? Crazed actor 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree with all those deletions. There are a few more I would like clarification on too, like the B2 not being able to get away or the F18 not having enough fuel. For the B2 I am not sure that they would or wouldnt be able to get away, but what was the pilot supposed to do, fly towards his nuke? As for the F18 I am not entirely sure the canyon in the film is supposed to be the Grand Canyon, it could be though and in that case I would like a citation for the range that the craft supposedly fly and how far it can fly.

[edit] A few more of the goofs need deleted

Things like too many missles for the plane or insufficent fuel. It's in the near future, they've modified the aircraft to hold more missles and made it more fuel efficent. Joncnunn 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I tell you what, I'm a Star Trek fan. But this film isn't Star Trek. So why did someone have to put some Star Trek babble in about anti-matter engines and what not? Its completely irrelivant to the article. I'm removing that part of the paragraph, and if whoever put it there want's to argue - if it would be physically impossible for the Enterprise to be powered by a matter-antimatter reaction, then the same goes for a 15 mile wide space ship.

[edit] Air Force rank insignia was NOT a goof.

First thing I've ever edited on the site, so let's hope I'm doing it right. But I had to take out the following "goof"...

  • During one of the briefings, an air force E-7 is shown in the foreground. The E-7 in the film has six downward stripes; in reality, an E-7 has five downward stripes and one chevron/rocker.

Actually, I firmly believe the movie to be correct on this point, or, at very worst, just a bit untimely. In reality, an E-7 (Master Sergeant) in the U.S. Air Force DID, until relatively recently, utilize a rank insignia of six downward stripes. It is a recent change to the uniform to designate an E-7 with the five downward and one upward chevron. From the wikipedia article on USAF enlisted rank insignia:

The year 1991 also saw the last major change to the enlisted rank insignia. In October 1991 General McPeak and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Pfingston announced that the senior NCO tier would have new chevron layouts and that all chevrons would have a white star in the center. The change in senior NCO chevrons was the first since chevrons came into being in 1948. Since that time, Master Sergeant had been composed of six inverted chevrons (six down) with none pointing up, Senior Master Sergeant six down with one up and Chief Master Sergeant six down with two up. The new layout changed the insignia to the current layout (see chart above).

I don't know exactly when this change took final effect. But as recently as 1998, when I was commissioned in the Navy, I noticed recognition charts that showed both the "old" and "new" insignia for Air Force E7 through E9.

[edit] The (Sydney) Opera House is not destoryed in the film.

The movie features several scenes of major landmarks being destroyed by the aliens, such as the First Interstate World Center, the Empire State Building, the White House, Big Ben, the Sydney Opera House, the Statue of Liberty, the Saint Basil's Cathedral and the Eiffel Tower.

I hope it was not an issue that I removed the fact that The (Sydney) Opera House is listed as destoryed. I removed that as you can see it standing in the shot of Sydney (with people celebrating on the carriageway of the Harbour Bridge who look to be the same height as a double-decker passenger train).

It is shown in the film, just not destroyed.

[edit] "July 4th"

It says in the article the film was called "July 4th" in the UK... I'm not sure about this, certainly when I saw it it was called Independence Day. -- 9cds(talk) 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Flamekebab: I'm not sure where they're getting their info from on this, as I remember when it was released over here in the UK and I can assure you "July 4th" was never heard. It was called "Independence Day" both in film and in merchandise.

[edit] Ship comparison

This is a somewhat weird question, and I do understand that the answer would be highly speculative, but based on observations made in the movie, how would the alien ships fare against say the Enterprise-E from star trek?


The Aliens appear to be at about Borg level - asteroid-sized spaceships with city-zapping death rays - which makes the idea of them being defeated by a hacker developing a computer virus even more ludicrous.

Exile 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If they've never encountered a computer virus why would they have any defence against it? 193.140.194.104 10:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

isn't a computer virus how the borg were beaten in best of both worlds? --dan 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing

Bah, I'm still pretty new to wiki, and I was trying to cite "Krauss, Lawrence, Beyond Star Trek (1998) ISBN 0060977574" for a few new goofs/effors, by looking at the editing help, but I did it wrong. Rather than mess with it, and potentially screw it up worse, I'd rather just have someone help me. Thanks Roffler 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nvm got it Roffler 22:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Errors and Goofs

The errors and goofs section for the Independence Day (film) article is one of the worst sections on all of Wikipedia. Most of the errors and goofs seem like fanboys or anti-ID4 people pointing things for the sake of pointing things out, rather than actual errors and goofs. An overwhelming percentage of the listed Errors and Goofs are easily explainable but are still listed as errors and goofs. In fact, at least one belongs in the Trivia section. In addition, one of them is incomplete and leaves off in the middle of the sentence. Someone needs to officially delete or update this section.

They might seem silly to you, but try watching this movie with someone familiar with the modern US military, and watch them squirm in their seats. And btw, I moved one of the "errors/goofs" (that simply stated facts about a vehicle used in the movie) to the trivia section, as it seemed it would better fit there. 134.253.26.6 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
^ me Roffler 20:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the first statement. The idea behind a movie is suspension of disbelief. To break down a movie like that is not NPOV. -Emhilradim 08:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
A s-f/adventure movie shouldn't, however, contain goofs and howlers so obvious that you spend most of the movie laughing out loud.

Exile 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement. Some of them were so nitpicky it was hard to believe (who cares if they misspelt a single Russian word?). I've already gone through and deleted the two "goofs" about Will Smith's character flying through the Grand Canyon and then walking to Area 51; unless I'm very much mistaken, his dogfight with the alien spacecraft actually took place in Death Valley, which is much more geographically suitable (halfway between LA and Area 51, and it also puts him in a good place to get picked up by Randy Quiad's caravan people). But this whole section needs a complete update. Battle Ape 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are a lot of things listed in the Errors and Goofs section that should not be there. The things in Errors and Goofs should only be things that are clearly innacurate. This is fiction, therefore a large burden of proof is required to consider something an error. Things such as the President's fighter carrying too many missiles should be left intact, because we know the specfications of an F/A-18. However things like the Aliens ships having g-forces that would have killed the pilots should be removed. We do not know what technology these aliens may have had to minimize the effects of g-forces and can therefore not assume it is a mistake. I removed this one from the Errors section. I also removed the following (and reasons for removal):
  • The air-to-air missiles used by the F/A-18s in the movie are designed for use against other small flying aircraft and do not contain warheads large enough to cause sufficient damage to a spacecraft the size of a city. During the finale, this fact is acknowledged (once almost every missile had been fired), but it should have been quite apparent to military commanders from the start. - There are two battle scenes where this takes place, and I believe there is not enough reason in either case to consider this a mistake. Remember, it is stated multiple times throughout the film that the available military forces were severely depleted. They had to strike with whatever they had. Also, this "error" assumes that their intention was to completely destroy the ship. They may have only been intending to disable it. As I stated, there must be significant reason for something in a work of fiction to be considered a legitimate error.
  • An object the size of the mothership exploding while in Earth's orbit would cause considerable damage to the planet. - There's multiple problems with this. First, no citation. Second, the reason there's no citation is because there is no scientific framework to determine if it's even true. We don't know A) how far away the ship was ("in orbit" doesn't necessarily mean closeby like the ISS), B) how large of a warhead was used, or C) what materials and precisely how combustible they were that were present aboard the alien ship.
  • Area 51 is an Air Force Base, but it inexplicably has naval fighter jets (F/A-18s) instead of Air Force ones such as the F-15 or F-16. - Again, it was stated multiple times that military forces were severly depleted. It was also made clear that aircraft were landing wherever they could (the Middle East and Europe scenes, plus the news report of military in-hiding).
  • All of the alien ships are proven to have shields, however, early in the film, an orbiting satellite is clearly seen impacting the mothership's hull. Also, the satellite explodes into a fireball. In the vacuum of space, a fireball cannot exist. One way to possibly explain the fireball is that an object having a quarter of the moon's mass has it's own gravity and might have attracted a thin oxygen atmosphere that was sufficient to support an explosion. Nonetheless, this scenario is extremely unlikely. - At the very least this should be split into two separate errors. But the shield part I removed completely, because no where in the film was it established that the Mothership had shields, therefore it's an assumption that the satellite hitting the hull rather than the shields is an error. --Matt72986 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Take a look at this:


"# [1] Note: Remember that this is foreign technology, and the ship would be able to keep stable the geographical changes the ship makes."

Could someone please elaborate on the note? It doesn't make sense because it sounds like the Aliens know how to break the laws of physics. Did the source elaborate on how this worked? Because these aliens seem to know how to orbit in a geostationary orbit without causing any of the ramifications that would happen. --143.238.196.18 12:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virus?

I think the direct reference to The War of the Worlds in the use of the virus and Jeff Goldblum's line of giving the ship "a cold" should be noted clearly on the page rather than being just half-note in the Criticisms section. Thoughts? Annie D 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed entirely the reference to War of the Worlds. The comparison is flawed in that there is no thematic relation between the bacteria that killed the aliens in the H.G. Wells story (said bacteria were a product of nature) and the computer virus that stopped the ID4 alien technology. A computer virus is nothing more than a covert sabotage program and was the product of man's ingenuity, not a product of nature as in WotW. Darin Wagner 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, this is just the evolution of the concept. Infact, in '90 it will be hardly possible to think that a astro-ship comes to the Heart without protection NBC. But i wuoldn'be impossible to try with a (informatic) virus. I.D. is based conceptually on several previuos films, as Star Wars and The war of the worlds. It's not really a remake, but neverless it's based on these stories. --62.11.49.240 11:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact remains that in ID4, humans stopped the aliens. In WotW, humans did not. There is no "evolution of the concept" here. It's two different thematic concepts. Darin Wagner 02:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are David and Constance actually divorced?

The article states that Constance is David's ex-wife, but is it actually stated in the film that they are divorced? My impression was that they were estranged. Jinxmchue 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the early scene with David and his father playing chess, he criticizes David for still wearing his wedding ring and says something like "It's been two years already, time to move on." He (Judd Hirsch) also says in the car on the way to Washington "She never took your name when you were married". I don't recall it being explicitly stated they were divorced, but the phrasing and tone of some comments leave little doubt, I think. Gooshy 10:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to dust off my VHS copy (blech!) and watch it again, but I'm beginning to think you're right. Jinxmchue 04:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] physics, lol

"However, others disagree, claiming that because of their vicinity to the ground, the spaceships would not have enough distance to accelerate to a speed sufficient for this to happen. They argue that for massive amounts of energy to be released, the spaceships would have to fall from a massive distance at a very fast speed (more then 3 kilometers per second)."

Could someone explain to me what this is trying to say? I read it as: "Somehow, unless the spaceship is moving very quickly, the kinetic energy will stay contained in the ship." This is obviously false, as it has to go someplace, and even if only 5% is released outside the ship when it crashes, that is still several orders of magnitude greater than the energy of the Hiroshima blast. Any thoughts, fellow wikipedians? Roffler 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given the original author 2 weeks to respond, w/o any new developments, so I'm removing that passage. Put it back in if you wish, but please provide sources (as I did), or its OR, and will be removed again. Roffler 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. Wasn't me who wrote what you deleted, but it sounds to me like you're arguing that kinetic energy is a static quantity. I also don't see any sources referenced in what's left of the entry. Gooshy 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


random theory: maybe the ship is made from shock absorbant and light meterial (they relly on energy shield 4 protection...) 193.140.194.104 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars reference???

I want to know if this event is a homage to Star Wars, most notably Return of the Jedi. Okay, during the first counterattack on the aliens, one of Black Knights, before he collides with an alien fighter, declares "There's too many of them!" This seems awfully similar to The Battle of Endor when a Y-Wing pilot says the same thing about TIE fighters.

It's too vague of a sentence, as that could be said about anything. ChunkyKong12345 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-Platform Goof?

Would a virus written on our computers really work on a computer we know nothing about? Leagues of programmers working for companies often have trouble porting programs between linux, windows, and mac. It's that hard to port between 32Bit systems, so I can only imagine how one man can bridge the gap on his laptop.

If that worked I should be able to port some of my windows apps to my toaster...71.10.6.16 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean 'cpmputer sistem they know nothin about'? they had an alien craft in area 51 for quite a few years. 193.140.194.104 15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, noone could have written a virus for that kind of system, i mean, its complete alien to us. Even if they had the spaceship for years, I understood they didnt discover much of their tech till the mothership arrived, and the smaller ship turned on by itself (they didn't have an appropriate power source to experiment with). Plus, we dont know their language, or programming methods, and being an alien culture far more advanced than ours, I doubt someone would create a virus overnight (like the guy does, after his dad gives him the idea, he had the virus ready the next day). I found this fact the weakest link in the movie. Mariano Picco, 01/15/07

Guys... It's a movie... Relax! White_Bishop 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Revisions Required; Criticism and Errors

I already spent some time revising the Errors section today (see the Errors and Goof talk), but I feel more work is needed. The very first error should probably be revised, as the film said "a stationary orbit", not a "geostationary" orbit. I also think the Criticism section should be turned into a Reaction/Reception section and should be more balanced. Right now it is clearly biased by someone who did not enjoy the film. The first two paragraphs don't even have citations. --Matt72986 13:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt, the nit-picking anti-fans of this movie have it bogged down in this nonsense all over the internets. :) As far as I'm concerned, you have my full support (should point out, I'm nobody, heheh) to strip the thing entirely and reduce it to genuine errors. Of course, this'll probably result in an edit war, lockdown and then a long and pedantic discussion of the 'merits' of the whines...err, criticisms. Sounds fun! Gooshy 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot issues

I noticed an error in the plot summary. The author states "It is later mentioned that Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, Colorado Springs, and Houston are also destroyed; however, only the Houston attack is actually portrayed." I would like to point out that they do mention that NORAD was destroyed. NORAD is in Colorado Springs. Jcwilder 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The blast from the destruction of NORAD would've also wiped out Colorado Springs. I've also added the other cities on that map in Area 51. --MasterA113 22:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cities Destroyed

I don't remember seeing any mention of some of the cities on that list. Can anyone back some of these up? --MasterA113 13:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Dallas - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Houston - Seen in person
  • Tuscon - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Las Vegas - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Boise - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Denver - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Vancouver - ???
  • Bismarck - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Philadelphia - Mentioned by President
  • Memphis - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Detroit - Seen on map in Area 51
  • San Francisco - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Miami - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Atlanta - Mentioned by President
  • Chicago - Mentioned by President
  • Jacksonville - Seen on map in Area 51
  • Toronto - ???
  • Colorado Springs (NORAD) - Mentioned
  • Sacramento - ???
  • Oklahoma City - ???
  • Salt Lake City - ???
  • San Diego - Might have been on map, but I thought that was Los Angeles
  • Milwaukee - ???
  • Edmonton- ???
  • Cincinnati - ???
  • Richmond - ???
  • Kansas City - ???
  • Little Rock - ???
  • Ottawa - ???
  • St. Louis - ???
  • Montreal - ???
  • New Orleans - ???
  • Tallahassee - Seen on map in Area 51

Somebody help! --MasterA113 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't remember most of those (most of them don't seem worth the aliens' trouble), though it's been awhile since I've seen the film and someone taking a close look at the map might have gleaned them. The old website mentioned various events (Tokyo having the highest amount of deaths because most people didn't flee the city; choosing a city you wanted to protect; the VP surviving the NORAD attack and fleeing to Cheyenne Mountain, etc.) Perhaps a screenshot showing the maps would help? DirkLangeveld 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Marines don't do that"

Marines do not salute without a cover or when out of uniform. Captain Hiller was a (fictitious) Marine. My favorite peeve with the movie... --76.212.169.202 04:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critiquing the film

"While a massive commercial success (it made over $300,000,000 in the U.S. alone), the film was given mixed reviews by some critics. Criticism of the plot included the claim that it would be impossible to cause the aliens' high-tech computers to malfunction by infecting them with a simple computer virus. Another scientific criticism was..."

erm...no, I don't believe there was an overwhelming amount of criticism that the film portrayed the impossible (in your evaluation) when aliens were disrupted by a computer virus. Maybe amongst some geeky circles it warrented discussion, but I doubt it bothered the editors in Empire magazine. Kransky 11:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndependence_Day_%28film%29_2e05.html"