Talk:The Grey (film)

Plot summary

Doesn't Hernandez survive the crash and get killed by the wolves while on watch? I think Lewenden is fatally injured in the crash and talked through death by Ottway, not Hernandez. Abadguitarist (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The summary of the ending

If I remember correctly, the letter wasn't written to his wife, it was suicide note written to his loved ones. It was originally supposed to seem like a letter to her before it was revealed that she was dead. I would change the page myself, but I wanted some confirmation on this. 75.162.51.132 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the letter was addressed to Ana. She was "the loved ones" receiving the suicide note. There is ambiguity in revealing his contemplation of suicide and Ana's death, but the (suicide) letter itself is addressed to Ana. --Abadguitarist (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I changed the second reference to the letter/note at the end of the film just to read "his letter." Hopefully this satisfies you while also cutting a couple words out of the summary. I maintain that in the close-up shots of the letter as he writes it at the beginning of the film Ana's name is visible on the paper as the recipient. --06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abadguitarist (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I couldn't remember if it said her name on the note at the beginning. It wasn't important to me at the time, so I didn't notice. 75.162.51.132 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Post Credit Sequence

as i write this the main article says.

In a brief post-credits scene, the back of Ottway's head is seen laying on top of the still-breathing Alpha wolf's stomach, leaving it ambiguous as to whether or not he survived.

i don't think this is a reflection of the facts. Principally there is no way we can identify it as the Alpha wolf. logically there doesn't seem to be a way it can be. as the film ends he is about to fight the alpha wolf. one of them has to die, the film makes this clear. if ottway is dead then he wouldn't be dead on top of the alpha wolf. the the alpha wolf is dead it wouldn't be breathing. the most likely interpretation is that he has now been accepted into the pack by defeating the alpha. Flagpolewiki (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree... I think that acceptance into the wolf pack is one of the less likely meanings for the last scene. Assuming it is actually supposed to be a live sequence (and not a metaphor/dreamscene), it would suggest that the alpha wolf has indeed been defeated and is taking it's dying breaths and that Ottway is either, a) lying exhausted on him, having a rest before continuing on his adventure, or b) (more likely) has also let death 'wash' over him (can't remember the exact expression used in the film). In either case Ottway has found his peace. 211.31.37.109 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ottway is dead. The common thread throughout the group of survivors is that each of them had a deceased loved one. This is what Ottway realizes when he stops and goes through the wallet photos, and why the director finally reveals that Ottway's wife is also dead. This is the literary response to Ottway's challenge to God, and it's why he can accept his fate. The end of the movie makes no sense if Ottway survives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.188.29 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me that a dead Ottway is on top of the wolf. How could this possibly happen? as for 'the literary response to Ottway's challenge to God'.... Flagpolewiki (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ottway did survive, in the original screenplay it states the fight. Ottway punches the wolf in the face and stabs it The wolf then tears at ottways legs and stomach. In the end ottway kills the wolf and he lays down bleeding out until a helicopter hovers over him It was a rescue helicopter that found him through diaz's gps watch. Also if you watched his other film "Taken" he makes a refrence to him retiring from his job in ALASKA 24.241.249.230 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a source to that screenplay please? Until then I'll make the post credit sequence description accurately reflect what happens on screen with no interpretation. Once the source is provided we can revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.249.166 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the consensus about whether a post-credit sequence should be part of the film's plot or not. I believe it should be included as part of the plot, it is more than just a detail scene. What are other thoughts so we can come to a consensus?AbramTerger (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously your inexperience leads me to believe that you are not aware of the several other discussions on post credit scenes. Let me break it down for you. Only the "main parts of the plot" should be in the plot section. Only enough to explain the story, not every scene. Post credit scenes are not vital to the plot. If they were they wouldn't be in the post credits, but in the actual film.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Budget

An IP edit changed the 20 mil budget (with Variety ref) to a budget of 34 with an IMDb ref. This was the original source for the budget of 20 mil. I have also found in this article a quote from director Carnahan saying the film was made for under 25mil. Variety is a reliable industry source that also appears in print, so with these two sources the budget is a range from 20-25mil. Does anyone have a reliable source for the budget of 34mil? --Abadguitarist (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupidly I must have only checked Box Office Mojo before when looking for a budget. The Numbers has it listed at 25 million and sourced to THR on the film's page here. I have edited the budget data and ref'ed The Numbers. --Abadguitarist (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Alpha and Omega males?

Can someone who has seen this film check this and similar remarks:

The wolves are close by and the survivors meet the alpha male wolf who sends an Omega male to test Diaz.

I smell synthesis based on someone's pet project on wolf behaviour. Unless the terms Alpha and Omega male are in the script ( an exposition scene, perhaps) ths is blatant WP:OR. Britmax (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC the terms are used in the film, in that particular exchange of dialogue and elsewhere, and as such don't think that's OR

On a related note, the capitalization of "Alpha/alpha" (and omega) shifts throughout the article and is frequently changed in edits. It's not consistent; does anyone know which is correct? On Alpha (ethology) it's not capitalized, but editors on this page seem to think it's a proper noun. --Abadguitarist (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The words "Alpha" and "Omega" are used in the movie. It wasn't stated that the alpha sent the omega, but the pack at large: "They sent an omega. An outsider". As for capitalization, the term is used in the movie similar to the title "king", so I would think similar capitalization rules would apply. In this case, the title and name of the wolf could be interpreted as "The Alpha". I don't remember them saing "alpha male", it was just "the alpha". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.139 (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

in the Controversy section

"Carnahan has responded by downplaying the significance of the violent wolves portrayed in the film, instead highlighting the significance of man's interior struggle for survival." Ah, so that's when Carnahan started pretending that his Hollywood action movie was actually a deeper movie about mind and man. At least, that's the impression I get from that line. 125.253.96.175 (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

the claim to have a fact sheet on the movie website is false, it claims "Open Road has responded by placing a fact sheet about the gray wolf on the film's official website" which I considered to be an interesting read, so went to find said fact sheet to enlighten myself. this is the official website http://www.thegreythemovie.com/ I have hunted all over it and there is no fact sheet to be found, so it might be a different website whoever wrote that means or it is just false information. Wolfvixen (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not false information. That claim is sourced, unless you are calling into question the reliability of the source. Here is the link to the fact sheet that appeared on the website: http://wiseusemovement.org/images/Wolf_Fact_Sheet.pdf from this page (not a reliable source to be cited in the article, but perhaps of interest to you) also describing the controversy and the fact sheet. If you were visiting the site in May and couldn't find it, it is not surprising. The film was released in January and it is general practice for film distributors to pare down their websites significantly following the film's theatrical run. In any case, that sentence should be reworded to remove "has" as the tense is problematic and is unnecessary. -- Abadguitarist (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Talkpage editing note: I've cleaned up the talkpage a bit to clarify some threading... I created this talk section by moving some comments from other sections, and increased/promoted the title level of the other subsections since they're not really subsections. If anyone feels like I've overstepped, please let me know here or on my user talkpage and I'll be happy to revert. El duderino ^(abides) 05:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Alpha wolf is female?

In the last paragraph of the plot summary there is a sentence that reads: "He is soon spotted by the alpha wolf and realises that it is female while the other pack members back off." Where exactly did this come from? Is there a source, or is this pure original research? In the version I saw, at least, Neeson's character makes no comment about the gender of the alpha wolf, and no real hint is given that it might be a female. It's a minor detail but nonetheless it should be changed if it's inaccurate. Thoughts? 99.99.166.46 (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

there's certainly no reference to it in the film. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gray Wolf vs Grey Wolf

Even though the film is called "The Grey", the wolf is a "gray wolf" so I changed references correcting the spelling for the wolf.AbramTerger (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Undid revision back to "gray wolf". Keeping the animal name consistent within wikipedia. "Gray wolf" is a specific type of wolf, it is not just an adjective color description of a wolf. AbramTerger (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted again for same reason. It is a "gray wolf". The gray is not an adjective.AbramTerger (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Horror Film?

Shouldn't this film be classified as horror/supernatural? The wolves are clearly not real wolves and appear to have supernatural powers:

They are much larger and stronger than real wolves (it takes a half dozen shot gun shells to put the weakest of them down). They are not afraid of humans (or anything else). The alpha is black with glowing green eyes. There are hundreds of them in the pack instead of the usual half-dozen. They can roar and howl with an amplified volume. They don't eat what they kill. They can communicate telepathically ("They sent the Omega in first"). They have the ability to leap across a thirty foot river gorge without harming themselves. They have a territory of 282,600 square miles ("a range of 300 miles from the den") - that's larger than Texas and a third the size of Alaska! 174.102.243.129 (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• While I agree that this film is certainly not an adventure, I also wouldn't classify it as horror. Sure, the survivors are killed one by one, but that's all it has in common with horror. As supernatural wolves go, they don't really have any powers. I put their size down to amateurish CGI due to too much Twilight. A lot of their representation is rather how they are perceived by the men. The words spoken by Ottway are only his opinion, not necessarily fact. And it's not clear we're dealing with a single wolf pack. I'd call it a philosophical thriller. Those words probably don't get placed together very often, but what else could it be? 24.57.210.141 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before (as far as I can see, it hasn't) but the summary is way over the guideline limit of 400-700. If someone wants to have a go cutting it down, feel free. If not, I'll have a crack at it later. It's not an overly complex narrative, so it should fit into the 700 words, or near enough as makes no difference. The tone of it also reads in a somewhat un-encyclopaedic way, so it might be worth seeing if correcting tone can also bring down the word count. drewmunn talk 08:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of anyone else doing this, I've cut the plot back to 636 words, a fair margin under the 700 limit. If you think I've cut out anything major, feel free to add it back in. drewmunn talk 16:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

Is it really "Notable" that PETA complained about something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnamkcor (talk • contribs) 07:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

year of release

The "world premiere" is given as Jan. 11, 2012, but it's a 2011 film -- ? The IMDb page has similar info. Perhaps there were 2011 showings, for Oscar consideration? ProfessorAndro (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Polar Bear Scene??

I'm trying to find a source for some info about a deleted scene where Neeson's character kills a polar bear. I'm quite certain I recall the scene from when I first saw the film in 2012, but I rewatched it just now on television and no polar bear. I'd like to add to the article that there was an alternate version with a polar bear, but I don't see any reference to the polar bear anywhere. Can anyone help clear this up please? Lafong (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Adi Shankar was the executive producer?

So I was just on the wikipedia article for Adi Shankar and it said that he's known for being the youngest executive producer of a box office hit, referring to The Grey. I don't see his name anywhere on this movie's article though. Merits investigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9C01:2593:5829:2A39:E746:662 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis Tone

The tone and language used by the plot/story summary is overly emotional, and explores thematic and emotional content not relevant to a summary of the plot. 2A02:C7C:BC8E:C500:D9C6:DFAC:7003:6200 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)