Talk:Transporter 2

Water in the syringe?

It was to my knowledge that the syringe contained saline solution. I believe the bottle from which the fluid was drawn backs this assertation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.115.3 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

actual title

The actual title of this is "Transporter 2" right? The official site and the trailer lack "The". Can anybody dispute this beyond pointing to what IMDB has? Otherwise I'll move this the the proper title. K1Bond007 19:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its just called "Transporter 2". I'll go and move it. Thunderbrand 12:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Fernandez thinks there's a connection to romanticism and chivalry in this movie... LIEZ!!!! ALL LIEZ!!!!

Where can I find the shoes Lola/Kate was wearing in the film and the French DVD cover? fuck offf.....

Shiny orb thing

What the heck was that weird shimmering orb thing that was in that room in the hospital? That ruined the rest of the movie for me.

60.228.173.211 06:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC) That was meant to be a graphic and highly stylised representation of sound waves passing through the air. The sound of the elevator beeping travels through the rooms and ventilation shafts until it reaches Lola, who then knows where they are.

Dedication to Michael Stone?

Just witnessed the ending credits of this movie and there is a dedication to Michael Stone. Who is this person? Don the Dev 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Michael Stone was the director of photography for Transporter 2. He died in a car crash just a few days before the film was released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMARTIN444 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

"This was seen as a very poor sequel" that part is fine I believe, but when it goes on to say "...the stunts and basic going ons on the film very fake and un-real." seems to be more of a POV statement. Maybe it should be changed? - Tim

The second part should be removed and the first part should be cited directly or be considered another POV statement. --Don the Dev 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Content

Does everyone understand the plot, or should I expand it a little so its not as sudden?

You'd be better off re-writing it, especially since it reads like someone relating to their buddy at a water cooler what happens in the film. No offense, it's just too lax. --75.35.82.128 19:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Worry not. I've made it more encyclopedia-like with formal writing. I might, as well, remove the "informal" tag, too. KajiTetsushi 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have problems with the plot section. It's really confusing. The son breathes on the father, then terrorists want to use the father to infect the world? First off, I thought the virus killed anyone it came into contact with within 24 hours, so how could the father be any use to terrorists? Secondly, what happened in the end with the dad. Did he get cured, or did the terrorists use him as an infecting agent? These are just a few things, I think the plot section could probably do with another rewrite.--DarshaAssant 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently re-writing the plot in my sandbox, any suggestions would be welcome. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lola's guns

Anyone know the guns she is using? Chris 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it, Glock 18 Chris 08:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Damaged landing gear?

"The Lamborghini collides with a sign at the end of the runway, damaging the aircraft's landing gear." The landing gear was in no way damaged by the Lamborghini or the explosion. The landing gear would not come up because Frank Martin was hanging from it. - Tarun. (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Too detailed plot summary.

I think the plot summary's a little too-detailed for Wikipedia's standards. We don't need a play-by-play of the whole movie, just a synopsis.

Jmodum90 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I started revising it, but I've gotten sidetracked. It's in my sandbox if you want to help. Blackngold29 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is kinda bad right now. It just reads funny, like a conversation between 13-year-olds. It has a :"And then this happens! Oh, and then that happens!" kinda vibe. Plus, it says the family died at the end (I went ahead and changed that), but they don't. It goes against the whole ending of Frank saving the day. They are sick, not dying.--MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lola and Frank in the Audi

"forces her way into his car when he is held at a standoff by an unseen sniper capable of penetrating the car's bulletproof glass"

It was actually the bomb under the car that the guy in the hummer planted under Frank's car in the doctor's parking garage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.95.127 (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gay?

[1] Obviously not gay. Yes it says Frank Martin "was originally envisaged as being gay" (i.e. before the first film was made, and a change in the decision was made). A "gay subtext" is not the same as a character being gay either. Xena and Gabrielle have a gay subtext, but are not gay. "If you watch the movie and you know he's gay, it becomes so much more fun" and "That's him coming out!" - clearly are jokes! It would be best if this silly fanciful idea of Frank Martin being "gay" wasn't readded. Oh yes, in Transporter 3, he clearly says he's not gay, and ends up with that lovely redheaded woman. 82.152.202.149 (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but it's what the director said at the time. Since the third film has a different director, he obviously had a different interpretation. That in no way means that the other guy was "joking". The fact of his idea and the source used to reference it is not a hoax. Millahnna (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)