Talk:Air Force One (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Tanker Explosion

I elaborated in the synopsis on what might have caused the tanker to explode. Previously, it just said the tanker explodes without any real reason why it would have done that. Tankers don't just spontaneously blow up. Now, hopefully, readers should have some idea about what happened in that scene. -HuronKing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.18.248 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Hole

The article says: "The film makes no attempt to explain a gaping plot hole. One key character is discovered to be a traitor, but no explanation is given for his betrayal." I dunno, though. Wasn't he a bad guy the whole time? If so, I don't see why the movie needs to explain it. It doesn't need to explain why Harrison Ford's character wanted to become president, or how he met his wife -- they ("they" meaning those points) are out of the scope of the story... --Peng 28 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Yes, he was the bad guy the whole time, and we don't discover it until near the end of the movie. He was still a traitor, however. He was on the President's cabinet, but betrayed him. Since he's the "bad guy," we kind of should be told what his motivation was. As it is, they just have him as the bad guy without any explanation for his motivation. — Frecklefoot | Talk June 28, 2005 20:44 (UTC)
Erm.. we discover it right at the start of the movie: if we're talking about Xander Berkeley's character, he's the Secret Service agent that shot the other agents, and he wasn't on the President's cabinet either. Saying that, there wasn't any development of the character, but I wouldn't say it's a plot hole (I'd imagine that his motivation would be a big wad of cash, and that would make for a dull scene). One plot hole, however, is that he thought he could escape instead of the president and not be discovered: the wreckage would almost certainly be recovered (the President's body, state secrets, etc.) and they'd discover William H. Macy's body with big holes in it. He'd be "debriefed" extensively too, and I doubt any future president would trust him (as he says in his last line). There are a whole bunch of other holes to go with that one. Gid 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
By the time Berkley's character shot Macy's it was clear that the plane was going to crash into the Caspian Sea. Recovering bodies would be dfficult if not impossible, and they would likely be mangled by the force of impact and partially eaten by marine life before they could be recovered. Besides, the plane already contained the bodies of several people who had been shot. How would anyone know that Macy hadn't been killed by a terrorist? All the witnesses to the shooting would have been dead if Berkley's character had gotten away instead of the president. The president's wife and daughter might report that they saw Macy alive at the end, but Berkeley could easily have said a terrorist had survived and, after the wife and daughter left, had managed to shoot Macy, the president and the airman who was trying to rescue him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.113 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC).


An (of course subsonic) airliner dodges two AA missiles fired in it`s tail without any chaffs or flares! Yeah! 10 stars for realisticism! Petersen seems to have been really busy falling deep since Das Boot.

-Removed Trivia about Plot Hole, the Secret Service member was clearly bad from the start of the movie (i am watching it now). Additionally, chaffs were fired to avoid the missile, don't believe me, then watch the movie for once. --Massrepublican

I saw that part of the movie, but saw no chaffs. The aircraft rolled slightly and the missiles passed over it`s wings. The missiles approached the plane too slowly anyway (the differance in speeds should be 2 machs or so). And i remember the president taking commands to maneauver the plane to dodge the missile (and warning his familly to prepare for that).
Besides chaffs would have hardly done any good as they are used to confuse radar-guided missiles. The aircraft should have fired flares to confuse the missiles as they obviously flew close enough for their infra-red close-aproach guidance to start (or they could have been IR guidance-only missiles anyway). And I definitely saw no flares being fired, as their fireball appearance would have been easy to see especially as all of this was happening during a night.

--If you rewatch the movie it is quite obvious that flares are fired.

[edit] junk trivia

The practice of having "trivia" that is far removed from the subject of the article has poped it's ugly head in this article too. Just because the TV show 24 has some common cast members with this film is not particularily notable and doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopedia. The other trivia items are directly related to the film, like the aircraft and locations used for filming and what camera techniques were used. --rogerd 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


"that automatic weapon fire in the corridors of the aircraft would quickly shred its aluminum skin and ruin its aerodynamics."

I would contest that this is wrong: aren't the bulkheads of Air Force One kevlar-lined? And in any case, wouldn't all firearms aboard the plane be loaded with frangible/fragmenting ammunition? User:Spock 03:11 April 4, 2006 (UTC)


I concur that this statement is wrong. Full auto small arms fire would make a "sewing machine" pattern of small, neat holes, or a cluster of closely spaced, small neat holes. Considering the massive skin surface of the aircraft, the chance of there being enough disruption to cause significant aerodynamics is remote. Greater problems than this would be caused if certain hydraulic lines or wiring harnesses were hit.

Further clarification: frangible and fragmenting ammunition are two different things. Fragmenting ammunition comes apart in dense media, such as a human target, as an additional wounding mechanism. Frangible ammunition is designed to disintegrate when it hits something sturdy, such as brick or thick steel, as a safety mechanism. It's an open question whether frangibles would penetrate an aircraft skin. I'd think they'd penetrate. Next time I have a chance to go shooting, I'll see what frangibles do vs a 55 gallon steel drum.

[edit] Trivia False?

I am calling into question this particular trivia passage

"Viewers are given a detailed tour of the aircraft and its systems; both real and fictional. Most notable among the departures from reality include that the real Air Force One does not carry a known escape capsule, and that automatic weapon fire in the corridors of the aircraft would quickly shred its aluminum skin and ruin its aerodynamics. Contrary to popular belief, however, it would not necessarily result in instant death for all aboard; it would merely force a quick landing."

If I remember correctly, the use of special hollow-point bullets allows a weapon to be fired within an airplane without fear of penetrating the skin, even if shot at a window, although I imagine that glass windows would shatter, although plastic ones may withstand several hits. If I recall correctly, these are the types of bullets used by Federal Air Marshals to allow counter-terrorism fire in the event of an emergency without fear of destroying the plane.--71.235.66.254 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song sung by prisoners

Does anyone know the name of the russian song sung by the prisoners while radek is being released?Mysticflame 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was the Internationale, in Russian. Lawrence King 05:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No - it's the old soviet anthem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.164.2 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Internationale is the old Soviet anthem. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should trivia for the real AF one, be in the real AF one section?

There is an entry under trivia that AF One referes to any plane that POTUS is on at the time. While this is true, shouldn't this be in the entry for the real AF One and not here? --Tom 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed wrong date

Radek's capture was actually three weeks earlier than the President's speech, not two.--Hasty5o 06:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I corrected the rating. It said Air Force One is rated PG-13. If you look on MPAA's web site, you'll see that it's actually rated R.

[edit] Weapons

The trivia section states that MP5 A5's are used in the movie. Anyone know if this is definite, or is it possible the ones shown are A3's instead? The two weapons are virtually identical, so it's surprising to see such a specific indicator here). Frankg 06:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I've checked again; they're A5s. The A5 model has a different handgrip than the older A3 model, which has a checkered like handgrip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.115.228 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Gibbs the traitor?

On the plot summary of the article, it never states why Gibbs, the senior Secret Service agent, became the traitor in the first place. I watched the movie and couldn't figure it out either. What caused Gibbs to betray the President in the first place? --70.179.170.119 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Named by Quote

I dont know if this is true of everywhere but many people refare to this movie as "get off my plane" (said the wat ford does) instead of naming the movie. Should this be mentioned?

[edit] Could anyone remember this line?

From Just Cause: President Mendoza: "I've seen Air Force X times, and I can assure you that the President always wins!" Rico: "Yeah, but the important thing was that the President was the good guy, and today, I'm the good guy." Or something like that. But can anyone remember X? I'm leaning towards 3 or 5 times, but I need confirmation before it can become References in Popular Culture worthy. ~~Lazyguy~~I r needing userboxes plz! 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons/aircraft trivia

I've tagged the Weapons and Aircraft sections as trivia because they are trivia - listcruft that doesn't really matter to the overall plot of the film. I don't see anything similar in war movie articles I've looked at like Apocalypse Now or Saving Private Ryan. I almost deleted on sight, but I imagine there's a chance someone could justify the importance of certain elements from those lists (not all) and integrate or otherwise prosify them into the article. AUTiger » talk 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

I thought the plot summary was way too long & overdetailed so I shortened it considerably. Not that I was trying to provoke anything, but let the debate begin! Tommyt 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Radek Goof

The General was taken in the middle of the night as shown at the start of the film. When he was taken it is obvious that he is in PJ's, but when he is release from prison they return to him his uniform. What The!

Who's to say his uniform wasn't taken to the prison on the off chance he would be let out? Or maybe they sent a new uniform to the prison for the same purpose.

[edit] Perfect Dark

The extremely popular video game for the N64, Perfect Dark, based it's Air Force One level on the design from this movie, complete with Presidental escape pod. Noteable or not? Lots42 13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goof?

The article seems to think Ford offering the employee 'Postmaster General' is a goof...in the terms of the movie, the Ford's character and the employee were in danger of being shot to death at any second, the general comment seems to be a stress relieving joke. Lots42 13:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:3b90005ece28f.jpg

Image:3b90005ece28f.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NCIS

Wouldn't the NCIS bit be more suitable for the NCIS article? Lots42 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It's more important to the production information for NCIS than an only slightly related note here. Bill (talk|contribs) 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's actually already mentioned in the episode article, so I just removed it from this page. Bill (talk|contribs) 01:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god this movie is sh@t. It is garbage. GARBAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.34.26 (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)