Talk:Falling Down/Archive 1

Archive 1

BBFC

What in the world in the "BBFC certification" and why is it before the all important introduction/definition paragraph. It can't be more important than that. --mav

BBFC certification is the age rating given to a film by the British Board of Film Classification - U, PG, 12, 15, 18, etc. Perhaps I should've integrated it a little better into the body of the article. -Drew

Might be a good idea, since us yanks and probably many others would be as clueless as I was. We have the MPAA rating system - G, PG, PG-13, PG-17, R, RC-17, X, XX and XXX. --mav

Actually it's just G,PG, PG-13, R and NC nowadays.

Spoiler

Yes, Wikipedia contains spoilers. But why do people feel they must include spoilers? This puzzles me. Better to leave them out whenever possible.

Spoilers must be included if and only if they are informative and relevant to understanding the work of fiction better. Encyclopedias exist to try to provide information and insight about subjects, not promotional outlines that you might find on the back of a DVD box. So I think it's quite relevant - necessary, even - for some spoilers to be in Wikipedia articles. Of course, that decision is ultimately subjectively based and so debates can arise, but I'm more inclined to go along with people inserting spoilers than I do with people who remove them when I don't see the need to do either. Bryan 08:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph I just added back, giving the end of the movie, is a case in point. I came to this article by following a link from suicide by cop, which mentioned this film as an example of one that portrayed this act. This makes the description of the film's ending particularly relevant. The article isn't here for people who are trying to decide whether to watch this movie, IMO, it's here for people who are trying to understand the movie. Bryan 08:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree spoilers are necessary. They are useful in contexts beyond literary analyses already named. I had two occasions this year where I preferred to 'look up' the plot-outcome rather than waste my time or money digesting the entire storyline. (Not to mention handing over hard earned money to authors that I find irritating). Milligan 20:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilbert

My Wikipedia:Original research is that D-FENS is Dilbert.--Error 01:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

What?

"The movie was made during the recession...." through "...last man standing in a post-human Venice." .....do these things strike anyone as a little un-Wiki like?

Now that you mention it, yes... I haven't got the time to check were it comes from, but Google + history should solve this anomaly. Not that I especially dislike the para, but it roams a bit on the not really-that-objective side, no? Shinobu 11:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Racism

The only scene from which racist implications could be derived involves William being instructed by a local child, who is black, on how to operate a rocket launcher. When he incredulously asks how he knows such things, the kid responds, "I saw it in a movie." Most simply see this as either light humour or cultural commentary.

I don't see how that could ever be considered by anyone as racist. Are they implying that all black children have nothing better to do than learn about guns and violence!!!! It was obviously a social comment on how much television kids watch and what they can learn from it, it's not always a good thing.

The movie wasn't so much considered racist as it was considered using stereotypes unfairly. People were angry that Hispanics were made to be gangsters and Asians were greedy con artists. They of course ignored the Asian detective and the Hispanic detective that showed that both minorities could be honest hard working people as well.--Skeev 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just goes to show you, the human race loves to whine. Now, where's my duffelbag?--Agent Aquamarine 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it Aquamarine! You've got so much to live for! Oh, whats that? Your ex-wife reminds you of the one in Falling Down? Oh, geez, thats ok then. Here, borrow my duffelbag too. 203.59.189.173 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane It is racist movie, all of it is filled with racst things, just admit it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Here I was thinking that this was in regard to the "Falling Down has been described as a definitive exploration of the notion of the "angry white male";" snippet in the article. I wonder if such a line in the Boyz n The Hood wikipedia entry would go unnoticed; "Boyz n The Hood has been described as a definitive exploration of the notion of the "nigger" stereotype.173.70.57.161 (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The title

Do we have any confirmation on the origin of the title? Saying it's a reference to London Bridge seems farfetched to me.--Agent Aquamarine 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lake Havasu references are quite clear, and there's also a scene wehre Douglas buys a musical Snow globe for his daughter. When wound up, it plays London Bridge is Falling Down. I'll add the reference to the article. BryanEkers 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rodney King riots

I was surprised to see that, nowhere in the article, had there been a mention of the 1992 Los Angeles riots (Rodney King riots as they were also known). The riots took place while the movie was being filmed, and was from tensions of class, race and general economic frustration that were presented in the film. I vividly remember a press-junket type interview with Michael Douglas, at the time of the movie's release, where they brought up the coincidental but very relevant crossroad of these events. Thus, I have added it to the article. Any discussion of the social context of this film should most certainly note that. Happy editting ;-) --Bobak 19:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It has no relevance. The film was released almost a year after the riots, and nothing in the film even indirectly references the riots, nor was the movie specifically set during April 1992, nor (to my knowledge) did any of the analyses or reviews of the movie at the time it was released compare it to the riots. Douglas may have thought the timing was significant, but that doesn't make it so, especially since there's no indication that the riots prompted the director to alter the film's message in any way. I think the riot reference should be removed or placed in the trivia section. BryanEkers 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No relevance? That's a little strong. I think we can at least come to agreement on the trivia section --it's, at worst, similar to how the set of Waterworld was sunk in a storm during filming. As a studio movie, filming is done six months to a year before release. Thus the release date is not related to priniciple photography. IMDB's first trivia point (and no, I did not submit it): Filmed during the L.A. riots of 1992. The people involved with the film mentioned it at the release. Commercial reviewers are hardly the most esteemed group when it comes to making deep analysis of movies, but I digress...unfortunately this movie came out just before everyone started putting things on the internet and the amount of contemporaneous info on the movie, relative to others, is pretty poor --I ran a Google search and I got an MIT discussion where the director briefly touches on the relationship to the tension seen in the King riots. I'll move it. --Bobak 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Had Foster been a young black man who'd tried to study and work hard but couldn't get a break (rather like the "Not Economically Viable" guy at the bank), or had the real-life rioters been a bunch of angry white guys then there'd be issues of "racial, social and economic tensions portrayed in the film" brought to light. As it stands, the film has nothing in common with the riots except both are in the same city. BryanEkers 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that your interpretation of this artistic work is the only one possible. Compare this movie to Taste of Cherry to see how a movie can have a very strong element that surrounds the central character while not being from his/her perspective. Again, isn't that the magic of the medium? A good film can be openly interpreted --and saying the scenes with Latino youth, homeless, the rich (golfers and suburbanish family), the tension of Korean shop owners (see the notable situation with Latasha Harlins), and the working shmoes stuck trying to do their job (D-Fens and Duvall's cop), and you have a very arguable interpretation for that position. Thus your interpretation is just one interpretation, neither wrong nor right --but I can easily hold ground on my earlier statement. --Bobak 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any such statement, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's possible to interpret this film as a metaphor on the exiling of the Huguenots and it's possible to interpret it as a statement on the future of blimp travel and it's possible to interpret it in any of a thousand ways, but the burden is on the interpreter to prove that his particular interpretation has any meaning or relevance. I'm unconvinced that Falling Down has any link to the riots beyond the fact that the filming and the riots were going on at the same time, meriting (at most) a note in the article's trivia section. Anything more than that, unless you have a statement from the film's writer or director that the riots somehow influenced how the film was shot or edited, is original research. Your particular "interpretation" (indeed, anyone's) has no place in an article trying to be neutral. A while back, I wrote the "Social Impact of the Film" section (I just spitballed the title - I'd be happy if someone came up with a better one) in order to cite the Newsweek cover article, which suggested the film had struck a chord with mainstream writers and journalists. The article wasn't about black rioters, but white males who felt that their prominence was being usurped with the end of the cold war and a growing social liberalism. Conflating this with black discontent unless you can prove this is what the filmmakers intended serves no purpose. BryanEkers 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Black discontent"? Are you saying the entire 1992 Riots are tied to mere black discontent? No wonder we seem to be talking past each other. --Bobak 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can refute or counter my position, please do so. If you want to just nitpick, well... you're free to do that, too. BryanEkers 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the riots ought to be mentioned to provide a context to the milieu in which the movies events unfold. A bright cold day in april (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If anything, the riots caused this movie to go out of its way to make black people the one minority group it didn't attack -- everyone else gets stereotyped and criticized, but African-Americans are the one group noticeably absent from criticism. This was probably because in the post-riot climate everyone was going out of their way to soft-shoe African Americans and be "sympathetic" -- ignoring of course that this was the one ethnic group that had caused the most destruction during the riots and committed some of the worst crimes against people and property. Yet another sign of the politically correct attitudes of the 90s and early 2000s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.157.93 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

a commentary on most Americans' ignorance to other cultures and unpublicized rivalries in supposedly homogenous "Asian" culture

Added 'weasel words'. 24.239.129.219 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ass rape?

"...starts to force people out of his way – with violence or ass rape, if necessary." in the first section of the article. I don't know about using "ass rape" lol. Janechii 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Social impact of the film

This section needs citations for all of its claims. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to Finnish PM?

"Prime Minister Of Finland, Matti Vanhanen bears a remarkable resemblance to Douglas's character." What is this crap? How is Matti Vanhanen similar to Douglas' character, apart from being white and male? How proper is it to compare real life figures to movie villains? Ileppane 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rammstien - Reise, Reise

I added a Cultural references section.. And just linked to the image I uploaded. Was not sure how to get a thumb that did not disrupt the page flow. So if anybody else wants to do that, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleighboy (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rammstein reise reise poster.jpg

Image:Rammstein reise reise 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 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Baseless statements in plot summary

"While watching, he marvels at a "toy" water-pistol bought as a present for his young daughter on her birthday, and considers the culture of violence which makes a mockery of the very reality he carries in his duffel bag"

This is nothing more than assumptions and inferences made by whoever added it, and should be removed as no such thing is ever stated or alluded to in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.173.116 (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I only just noticed that that scene isn't in the plot summary. He actually comments on the water pistol in relation to how he has the real thing in his bag, it's an actual point in the movie. It's also used again when he squirts the cop. How can you think it shouldn't be included? 203.59.189.173 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Soundtrack

There's no information about the soundtrack yet. It seems a seperate soundtrack has never been released. All I found was a bootleg, combining it with the music of 'Flatliners' (which is also superb!) Track listing:

Flatliners

1. A Good Day To Die (1.54)

2. Redemption (4.28)

3. Diary Of A Surgeon (2.27)

4. Nelson's Challenge (3.15)

5. Flying / First Expedition (1.38)

6. Reflections In The Evening (3.22)

7. Tunnel Of Light / Second Expedition (0.46)

8. Back Alleys (1.03)

9. Voices (1.34)

10. Flashback / Third Expedition (0.36)

11. Sins Of The Past (3.00)

12. Memories / Fourth Expedition (1.06)

13. Atonement (1.18)

14. Forgiveness (1.50)

15. To Fly Alone / Final Expedition (0.59)

Total Length: 29.17

Falling Down

16. 110 Freeway (2.01)

17. South Central (2.37)

18. Miracle Mile (1.24)

19. Hollywood (2.41)

20. West L.A. (0.58)

21. Santa Monica (2.39)

22. Venice (3.50)

23. Pier (3.46)

24. Pacific Ocean (2.07)

25. Closing Theme From Falling Down (4.33)

Total Length: 26.37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasmich82 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

Apparently someone found the depiction of the asian shopkeeper offensive. There's no doubt about it that a lot of scenes in the film can be seen as racist portrayals. Certainly, a lot of the depictions of the minorities (be it black, asian, hispanic, or white supremacist) are quite a bit exaggerated... indeed, they can certainly be considered stereotypes.

However, to create a section that cites no references, and creates an imaginary group with an opinion on the film is truly a good example of bad editing.

If there IS controversy, it should be cited. If you'd like to add a section about stereotypes, and can do so without speculation, you should do so. But don't add in YOUR opinion just because something bugs you. This is wikipedia, not an internet forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.74.161 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Murder

I've removed references to the main character as murderously and homicidally violent. Although it's implied that he might try to kill his family, in actual fact he only (intentionally) kills one person. All of the violent acts committed by the character are reactive and seem largely intended to assert the power he doesn't normally feel, not to cause the deaths of others. Ttherefor I don't think his rampage can be labeled murderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.28.93 (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Empathy

"It is implied in their dialogue, and in earlier moments of the plot, that Prendergast has just as many reasons to delve into violence and despair as Foster does, yet Prendergast has a higher degree of empathy, which, perhaps, makes a crucial difference between the two."

I don't think "empathy" is the correct word here. Prendergast's motivation is similar to Fosters but Prendergast has not let it dictate his response. Any empathy Prendergast may have for Foster was not shown and certainly didn't manifest itself in his interaction with Foster. Kwyjibear (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fatigues vs. coveralls

I just recently finished watching this film. He is not wearing "fatigues" which normally denotes some sort of attempt at camouflage. These were all black, and looked more like a set of coveralls a mechanic would wear. I am suggesting a change to "coveralls" or something along the lines of "an all black jumpsuit." 68.165.245.234 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fatigues does not mean camouflage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.67.93 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

References in plot

Plot summaries do not require references, the idea being that the film itself is the source. With this in mind, I am considering removing the two refs which are currently in the opening paragraph of the plot. These seem to be there to source the relatively unimportant claim that Douglas' character worked for a "defense agency". This is unnecessary. If no one objects, I am going to removed the refs. Perhaps a place can be found for them in the production section. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon Berardinelli and Truby

I do not claim that they would constitute reliable sources, however they say common sense/intelligent things about the film. So, it is not an appeal to authority, but instead rendering quotes from what others have said before, it is called quotation with attribution. While the Truby site has some advertising my intention is not to spam the wiki, but to improve its contents. I think brief quotations may be used in articles even when the source is a commercial website. Quality matters, not the being commercial or non-profit. Imho, their comments are unlikely to stir controversy and even if they aren't reliable sources they are unlikely to be challenged since the film is indeed a comedy, a black comedy. I know it because I had tears in my eyes from so much laughing when I saw the film. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to come back to what I said about not being reliable sources: they are, since both authors have Wikipedia articles, so they are notable in film criticism and/or screen-writing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falling Down. 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/20091003192702/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/2580/year/1993.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/2580/year/1993.html

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) 12:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary should explain Beth's fear and cops' failure to protect her

I am adding a couple of short bits to the plot summary, to include Foster's calling Beth (his ex-wife) and telling her that he is "coming home" and his nutty ranting, from which she infers that he is coming to kill her and Adele; also, her calling the local cops, who offer only brief, symbolic protection. Without this additional info, it's not clear why she flees the home as he approaches. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: It might also be good to include the development of Detective Prendergast's character, which is a significant reason the movie is so good. Early in the film, he is hen-pecked by his neurotic wife, and plans to retire early and move to Lake Havasu; his boss thinks he's a coward and also doubts the validity of his concerns about Foster. Then, after he follows through on his pursuit of Foster and saves the day, he asserts himself over his wife and his boss, and decides to stay in LA and continue being an cop. It's a very satisfying sub-plot, but the virtue of keeping the plot summary from being too long needs to be balanced against the benefit of including it in the summary. (Brevity is the soul of wit.) So I'll leave this judgement call for other editors. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falling Down. 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://archive.is/20140423000934/http://m.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/falling-down-19930226 to http://m.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/falling-down-19930226

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) 16:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ending sentence

With the last line "Foster pulls a water gun, forcing Prendergast to shoot him dead" should be changed to include the 'Duel' or 'Standoff' Foster and Prendergast have at the finale. For example: Foster, revealing he has a gun in his pocket, challenges Prendergast to a duel, Prendergast initially refuses and attempts to talk Foster out of it, however Foster starts counting down from three. On one, Prendergast shoots Foster in the chest, Foster pulls out of his pocket, Adele's water pistol and says "I would have got you" before falling off the pier, into the water. Obviously it would need editing and maybe shortening but it is the great finale to the movie and I think it should be givin justice. tell me what you think of it. --222.154.167.12 (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is better to go for concision in plot summaries. If every editor starts winding out each scene which s/he thinks is cool, the result is enormously long summaries. I know it's fun to write, but it's not so easy to read and it doesn't really fit on Wikipedia. Mezigue (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mezigue. Furthermore, if you look at the article history, you will see that, not too long ago, the plot summary was more than 1,000 words long, an absurd length, and I edited it to remove all the unnecessary details. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel as if I should provide some quick input here. I've seen this film several times and I should note that the film doesn't just end there. Prendergast reveals to Adele that his name will be mud when his wife finds out that he's still a cop. This clearly means that he intends to stay on the force and not retire. And I feel that the ending sentence should note how Foster's home movies were playing as the film ends, since they depicted him as happy. Just a thought, but I think we should add in the part about Prendergast staying on the force and the film ends as home movies of Foster's family play. (Burmiester (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

Mention of Prendergast deciding not to retire is a minimum, since that is arguably the point of the ending. Also, the final sentence is a bit clumsy, making it sound like Prendergast knew it was a water gun and shot him anyway. We could at least reword it to make it clear he didn't know it was a water gun. Actually, I'm going to do that part now -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I say the reason why Foster claims to have "one more gun" should be included; namely that he wants to leave his life insurance to his daughter. I'm going to enter this here.DanielC46 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Heavily edited the article to have more information at (roughly) the same number of words, only ~10 more. I also expanded the text on Prendergasts' sub-plot. Main targets of my edits were combining redundant sentences, removing minor quotes for shorter summaries (does the one man saying "remember me" really matter, especially since his sign was more poignant/quoted later?), etc. Specifically for the ending of the plot description, some information was removed (like the fact he sat down) in exchange for things like his proposing a duel. 67.193.126.71 (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The end sequence should have one additional explanative expansion. I mean, why would Foster suddenly dare Pendergast to shoot him? The current plot summary does not offer the reason for this apparently senseless deed. I'd like to add that, with Foster having nothing more to gain in life, other than provide his daughter with his life insurance - an intention he states in the film, too - he issues the challenge to make Pendergast shoot him (i.e. Suicide by cop).00:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I too agree that a reason must be stated for Foster to trick Pendergast into thinking that he still has a live gun; in addition to rephrasing the final sentence of the synopsis somewhat. - DanielC46 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC) 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Added more content to the plot's ending

I felt that the plot summary ended too abruptly and was puzzled as to why the final scene was left out. It includes the ending to the subplot involving Prendergast and his wife and I felt the footage on the TV ended the film quite well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.129.92 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Character infobox

The character infobox should not be used in the film article. It adds nothing to our understanding of the film. Furthermore, as has been pointed out at the Film Project, the FUR for the image is invalid if used in the film article. If there is enough information about the character in reliable third party sources, a character article can be created. Otherwise, this is really a dead issue. Pointing out that another film article makes the same error is no help to the cause. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur that a character infobox is not suitable here, as I outlined here. It is better suited for a standalone article (which I could see being possible for this film). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps there should be a vote on whether to create a new article or to merge it, as what was done with Training Day. I'd preferably not have it merged, but I think it's important for everyone to have a say. --- Ducktech89 ^(talk) 12:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ending sentence

Although the plot summary is good for the most part, I think the final sentence ruins the flow that it had going. It ends abruptly with simply "Foster pulls a water gun tricking Prendergrast into shooting him dead." However I think it could stretched out further with something like "Foster and Prendergrast stand-off. Foster pulls out a water gun, and coaxes Prendergrast into shooting him dead. He falls off the pier in front of his family and a regretful Prendergrast." Something short like that would add more fluidity and conclusion to the plot and not compromise the length. Ducktech89 ^(talk) 12:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, might want to mention that he did this so his daughter could collect on his life insurance policy, which she could not do if he killed himself.Czolgolz (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

genre

I'd like to open a debate as the the genre to which Falling Down belongs. To me it is less a thriller than it is a very dark, satirical comedy. I'd be curious to know what other's think.203.220.212.117 (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What we as editors think is irrelevant. We go with that the sources say. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Then it is worth someone finding a source that declares the film as a comedy.Robbmonster (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Man on the Edge ?

Would anyone care to add that the Iron Maiden song Man on the Edge was inspired by this film? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Edge Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit to final paragraph of plot summary

I added a few important plot points about the ending that I believe are critical to understand the story. The old version of the plot summary made Foster's decision to draw a water pistol in his final duel with Prendergast seem almost random, with no mention of why Foster chose to trick Prendergast into killing him. But Foster's realization that he is the villain, and his subsequent decision to to commit suicide by cop, serve as the end of his character's and the movie's story arc. The film uses the classic plot of a protagonist whose motivations degrade until they're unrecognizable even to the protagonist themselves, and Foster's horrified realization that he is "the bad guy" provides the end to this plot. The summary is simply incomplete without mention why Foster chooses to be killed at the end of the movie. Voteins (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)