Talk:Children of Men/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Jasper's "Zen Music"

Does anyone know what the name of that song is? I've been searching for that song for quite a while now.

Try www.tunatic.com for free or 866-411-SONG (hold the phone up to the song) for a buck.

Theo's wound

After viewing the movie a second time and reviewing the scene on my computer, it's clear that Theo's wound comes from when Luke shoots at him right before he is killed by the tank blast. The summary here says that he "tries to shoot at Theo" and that Theo's wound comes from the general chaos. Is it worth making more specific mention of where the shot came from? Janors 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

The Australian film review link should be cut - it is poorly written and misses the point of the film,as opposed to the well written prague review. can we find a better one?User:mangonorth

I've added a link to the review given by the New York Times. Geoffrey C Vargo 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Budget

I see the information box says Children of Men's budget is $116 million. Is there any reputable source confirming this? I saw the trailer before Miami Vice a few nights ago and I can't imagine this film, which seems to be a fairly low-key, effects-light sci-fi drama, costing such a MASSIVE amount of money. Gunslinger 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of a specific $116 million budget for Children of Men, but I found an estimate of $150 million on the movie's IMDb business data. IMDb is not always verifiable, but I don't know if budgets can be user-submitted. If they are, then it is probably best to remove the budget until a valid source shares the amount. Also, please sign your comments on the talk page using four tildes in a row (~). --Erik 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it says $175 million. Wow, the budget for this one keeps ballooning. Honestly, having read the director discuss how he used hand-held photography and pre-existing locations for this movie, I HIGHLY doubt this film cost that much. Gunslinger 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not making myself more clear and wiki-focused. First, what I should've said was that I think it would be useful, neutral information if someone contributed a detailed account of the numerous differences between the plot of the book and the plot of the film--this is precisely the sort of thing that readers of a book inquiring about a film adaptation would like to know. For all I know the film may be worthy in other ways. But one of the reasons a wikipedia user goes to a page about a film is in making a decision about whether to see it or not. The relevance of the differences between a book and its film adaptation to such a purpose is clear. I should've expressed this in a more neutral tone. However, I should also say that there is something problematic about deleting content on a discussion page, as opposed to deleting article material. My purpose is to improve the article, not propagandize for conservative Catholicism (I'm not a conservative Catholic anyway). It was clear to me from the two articles that no one had so much as noticed the "agenda" of the book. But prospective readers of the book might want to know that, either to encourage or discourage reading it; and people who liked or disliked the book for that reason might want to know that the film will be different, and to seek it out or avoid it acccordingly.

If you look at the history of my participation on wikipedia, you won't see much "soapbox" activity. Please respond in the future with a comment, if you think a statement in *discussion* is offtopic, rather than simply erasing the comment. If one wants *discussion* that is. If one want's something else, never mind. Agent Cooper 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I apologize for deleting what you wrote. It's just that I've left warnings about not to use the talk page as a forum on other film articles, and it doesn't seem to deter future comments of a similar nature. I've seen a few other editors clean up talk pages that had forum-type comments, but I'm not sure what the policy is. A comparison of the book and the film would be a great addition to the article. Feel free to outline the differences clearly. My suggestion is to state facts from the book and facts from the film (for example, the protagonist met this person in the book, but he doesn't meet this person in the film), as opposed to having your own take about certain circumstances. Please see WP:OR guidelines as well. Good luck. --Erik 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

...And it is a bit difficult to see your history on WP, as you seem to have blanked your page, purging them of user comments en toto. We really have no way to see if soapbox activity is an aberration or regular thing.Arcayne 12:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

The release is wrong. While it may not be a worldwide release, September 22nd is the date in Ireland and the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.75.31 (talk • contribs) 13:16, September 5, 2006 (UTC)

According to the U.S. official movie site, the release date is December 25, 2006. According to the U.K. official movie site, the release date is September 22, 2006. Both have been included in the Infobox Film template. The U.S. release date was originally September 22, I believe, but was postponed for whatever reason -- better profit during the holiday season, Oscar contender, etc. --Erik 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Um we shouldn't have two release dates, just the first release date. The US will get it three months later than the UK but Wikipedia is a geographically neutral encyclopaedia and if we include the US release date then we should include every other country as well. Ben W Bell talk 07:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Each and every release date should really be mentioned. Geoffrey C Vargo 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Film reflection

Military equipment included a 1970's vintage Cheiftain Tank and Scorpion/Scimitar light tank. Seem a bit unlikely for use in 2027. The film is full of interesting religous symbology and understated suggestion, and even the odd red herring ('aliens' mentioned). A main character called 'Theo' - check the Greek translation ? Lots of nods and wink to previous films (Even 'Milo' in Planet of the Apes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.255.198.101 (talk • contribs) 16:01, September 23, 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant symbolism--75.176.185.207 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can hardly expect the British Army to lend Challengers and other light tanks looking at the way they're portrayed. I can see how the budget for this film was so big, and it was great. There is LOTS to write about, and I'm pretty damn happy we finally have a good british movie out there. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB (talk • contribs) 13:00, September 24, 2006

Theo is named fully once as *Theolonius or Thelonius.--84.20.17.84 09:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds almost like a mirror image of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, with a total cessation of new generations instead of mass numbers of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.168.169 (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

I noticed a lot of references to American human rights abuses in the movie e.g. "Homeland Security" and Abu Ghraib scenes. Are there others that I missed? Perhaps there should be a section on this. Also could we say there's been a trend lately in portrayal of dystopian futures since the Iraq War? V for vendetta comes to mind. Finally totally unrelated, why were british soldiers using German G36 rifles along with the british SA80? And uniforms appeared more american than british. --Sirkeg 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the British Army has adopted the G36 in certain areas. Btw, the uniforms, well, its the future dude =D Seriphyn 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as the tank comments go, it would seem apparent that, as the labor force declines, there would be fewer and fewer people to fix them (esp. since a great many of those skilled technologists might have been deported or sent to a camp). The older tanks were far more rugged, and require far less-skilled maintenance to keep running. In regards to the human rights abuses, there might be more American references due to the fact that a lot of that imagery, being current, is going to have more impact. Abuses of this sort are generally not televised or recorded; leave it to the Americans to do everything on camera. :D Arcayne 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fix cut and paste moves

I see the next editor discarded petition to join the page history. What's going on? -Ricksy 03:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault. I didn't realise it was specifically a history merge, I thought it was just a general merge. I've re-added in the tag. Ben W Bell talk 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Edits prior to 14 July 2006 are back (six months). -Ricksy 02:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Overly wiki-linked?

Does anyone think that the plot summary is overly wiki-linked? The wiki-links of simple words: autograph, bomb, refugees, brand name, ambushed, motorcycle, scientists, bank, boat, soldier -- to name a few of the words that really shouldn't be linked. If no one disagrees, I'm going to remove most of them. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cast

I wonder why Julianne Moore is in the main cast due to her ad hoc old age. Does it contradict the novel? --Brand спойт 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the movie is drastically different from the novel. And Julianne Moore is pretty darn fine, "ad hoc old age" (whatever that means) or not. Casting Kelly McGillis opposite Tom Cruise is a terible miscast; it is not such here.Arcayne 08:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Shanti

The former midwife is something of a New Ager, wearing braids and chanting "Shanti, shanti, shanti" over the corpse of Julian. "Shanti, shanti, shanti" also appear at the end after the credits.

Name of the child

What is the name Kee initially wants to put the child? Frolley?

That's right. Evenfiel 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the name was Frawley. This is perhaps a reference to David Frawley, an American Hindu, Frawley is one of the few Westerners to be recognized by a major Hindu sect in India as a Vedacharya or teacher of the ancient wisdom. It is reasonable to deduce that the teenaged Kee might, influenced by the hindu teachings of the midwife and the Fishes, name her child after an important hindu teacher.Arcayne 08:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The subtitles on the DVD release say Froley. Tilefish 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the DVD has not been released as of yet, I would tend to not givew that a lot of weight. Perhaps you could check the actual book, from whence the material is derived? There is no such name as Froley, while it is far more likely that it is Frawley (considering the subject matter, and the fact that most Americans cannot distinguish English accents all that well).Arcayne 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the DVD HAS been released, here in the UK anyway. It is a British film after all, and it's Froley Seriphyn 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link or citation of that fact, please? Cannot believe they would have screwed up somethingso easy there...Arcayne 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Names of women characters

Was I the only one who noticed that the mid-wife's name is Miriam? According to Jewish tradition Miriam (masquerading as either Shifra or Puah) was the mid-wife for the Hebrews, who tried to save their infant sons from the Egyptians.

Marika is the name of the contact in Bexhill. Is this supposed to be like Mary, which is another variant of Miriam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.122.245.102 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

The film is chock full of symbolism. I would like to work this into a new section along with the trivia. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, Viriditas! :) Just make sure you cite whatever symbolism you uncover; elsewise it is likely to be pulled. Arcayne 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal abuse?

The plot summary says, "After Kee explains how animals are abused by researchers seeking a means of reversing humanity's infertility". I saw the movie last night, and what I recall is Kee telling Theo that humans cut off two of a cow's 6 teats because their machines are only made to milk 4 teats. She questions why we don't just make machines milk 6 teats. I don't recall any exposition re animal abuse by researchers, or at least not in this scene. Can anyone else substantiate or contradict my memory? Louise Allana 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I also didn't see it, Evenfiel 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she was concerned with how she would be treated as a mother by people who wanted something from her.--Chinawhitecotton 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think more significant in this scene is the sheltering of a miraculously pregnant woman in a barn (manger?). When Theo sees her belly, he exclaims, "Jesus Christ!" Later, Kee claims (jokingly) that she is a virgin. The baby even ushers in a (brief) moment of peace on the war-torn street. MJFiorello 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is significant, but not germane here. User:Louiseallana is correct. Aside from the milking reference, there is no mention of animal abuse. The statement in the article should be purged as incorrect.If anything, animals tended to become surrogate children for people. You may have missed the pan from the scen in which there were animals dressed up in children's clothing (which I guess qualifies as animal abuse of a sort), a direct reference to an affectation by people in the novel.Arcayne 08:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Film music

This film used a large variety of music, some of which is used to produce a very striking effect. Maybe it would be nice to have a section about that in the article? I'm not very knowledgeable about music, so I didn't recognize much of it. Maybe somebody could fill the gap? Just two pieces I recognized:
a) In the scene with Kee at Jasper's place, one can hear one of Gustav Mahler's Kindertotenlieder: "Nun will die Sonn' so hell aufgehen".
b) In the refugee camp, when the protagonists are standing in front of the russian guy's door, (just before the outbreak of the battle) one can hear some bars of the 2nd movement of Shostakovich's 10th symphony
It would be nice if somebody could follow up on this. --Malbi 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The song used as the main character is in a car and on his way to see his cousin at the "Ark of Arks "(ex-Battersea Power Station) is "In the Court of the Crimson King" by King Crimson. It features on their first album, also titled King Crimson. Pierremeg 16:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The editing of that particular scene was absolutely superb. The visuals matched the music and each one reinforced the other. For some strange reason, I get the feeling that the film is paying homage to another film in this particular sequence, but I can't quite place it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Set dressing

"Michelangelo's damaged and repaired statue of David is seen in one scene, -- with its left shin replaced with a metal bar -- dramatically showing both that mobs have rampaged through the great museums of the world and that Britain has made great effort to salvage such artifacts, without any character ever mentioning the fact."

The last bit of that information is incorrect. Theo's cousin says that they were too late to save the Pietà, so he did mention that fact.Evenfiel 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuous shot not one take.

Just to mention that the continuous shot during the war scene is actuallly made from several segments edited together using computers to help make it more seamless. This was mentioned in an interview in the UK Metro newspaper and also was evidenced by gradual disappearance of the blood specks on the camera lens once Theo moves inside the building. I'll try to find some documented citation to back this up. The Reviewist 12:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Documented citation would be awesome. Hoping to clean up this article before the release date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the Metro reference but here is one from another newspaper http://www.londonnet.co.uk/films/childrenofmen.html here in particular this comment: One incredible scene, the most panic-inducing chase sequence in years, contains such well-camouflaged cuts that it appears to be a single shot twelve minutes in length. Producer Jim Clay said, "We were charged with knitting together a series of shots that should hopefully become seamless as one timeless piece of action." I hope this is helpful. I can write this up in a few days time, but someone else is welcome amend the site sooner. The Reviewist 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

However, the same page says in the next paragraph that 'Cuaron said: "Everyone – the stunt people, the visual effects, the cast, the crew – took it as a crusade and said, ‘No way, we're not going to cut! We're going to go all the way through!'"' Also, the gradual disappearance of the blood specks is explained at http://www.accessatlanta.com/movies/content/movies/stories/2006/12/28/1229MMscene.html : '"The blood was great, but after a while it started to feel like it was on your face," Cuarón says. "It started to feel distracting." So he hired a computer-effects artist to digitally erase the blood from the final image, a very painstaking job.' At the least, it seems like the claim that the scenes were stitched together from multiple cuts needs more proof to back it up. This should be resolved or at least mentioned as a disputed fact since it could hurt the reputation of the movie if it's false.

Yeah...so why was the article changed to adhere to the seperate takes thing? Cuaron has said time and time again that at least the last scene is one take...until the cameraman fell down or something. User:SeizureToday 10:48, 7 Januray 2007 (MST)

Okay, I tried to fix the Cinematography section, particularly the discrepancy about the later combat scene. I also added a bit about the blood spatter, to help allay any suspicion about invisible cuts. Sure, if the reader checks the citation, they'll see it too, but it seemed relevant enough to include here. Werthog 06:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank whoever it was that finally fixed this section and cited their claims. I believe I was in the right with my previous edit, based on the evidence, but I'm glad to see the complete truth finally revealed here, and cited correctly.

I'm glad a source is being used for this, and I of all people could not imagine that a 6-minute (I measured) scene did NOT use any stitching-together, but the source used requires a registration, so I'm not completely sure it's valid. Could someone post a screenshot of whatever article it was? Not as the official reference, but just among this discussion. Until then, I'm unconvinced. The director did say it was one take, but if it's up in the air I'm gonna wait until the source is verified. --Katana314 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to say that the final (?) form that this header took in the article is very good. Bravo. :)Arcayne 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

US Release Dates

Can someone provide a source for "December 29, 2006" for the US wide release? The only source I have found is this article itself. --Crushti 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a true wide release for this film. I was looking into this (wanting to see it as well) and couldn't find anything to indicate a wide release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will be removing that date from the article if no one has any sources or arguments to keep it. [b]EDIT[/b]: imbd.com says Dec. 29, but I'm wondering how reliable this is, especially since there are no listings for the movie at my local theaters for Dec. 29 --Crushti 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably where the information came from. IMDb sometimes has bad info about upcoming films. I checked Rotten Tomatoes, and it seems to be a select screening only. I suggest going to the official site and checking the movie ticket sites that the site provides. (Didn't find anything for my area, sigh.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried that, in any browser that I tried, the "Enter the site" button didn't work. (Popup blockers are off). Also, I have discovered that one local theater is not yet reporting its showtimes for December 29, so it's possible that the movie will be released at that theater. I have found a few other sources citing December 29th (using Google), but all these sites may be getting their date from the same place. But I suppose the amount of sources is sufficient in letting the date remain in the Wikipedia article. --Crushti 00:02, 28 December 2006

The links aren't special. There's three: Moviefone, Fandango, and Movie Tickets. That's all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I really question calling these sufficient sources when there's no backup, the date is supposedly tomorrow, and nobody can find this at any local theater anywhere. I'm a bit miffed because the BF and I made plans to go see it this weekend based on these supposed wide release dates, only to find out it's not going to be anywhere around here! I can't believe that nobody out there knows what's going on with this film, but right now it seems this way. Some indication should be made that this date is unlikely, even if it is only a few hours away at this point, if only for accuracy's sake. 65.25.107.20 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon further research, it turns out that there is no wide release date and it will NOT be available to some Americans in over a 500 mile radius. The closest showing to me, for example, is well over 200 miles. Due to the fact that there is no wide release date, I will remove it. (I hate to put my opinion out there like this, but it's rather ridiculous that a wide release was originally planned in September, and now there is not one at all... and all because the filmmakers are being Oscar-greedy). --Crushti 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really not being wide-released at all, then, or will it show up sometime in January or February around when nominations get announced and/or the awards are held? I know there have been plenty of doc nominations that never saw wide release, but to say the same of a movie seeking "Best Director" is a little... odd. 65.25.107.20 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll find out in due time, I'm sure. The question's been asked, so if any of us find concrete information, it can be presented here and re-inserted into the article accurately. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have updated it again, this time with 1/5, but I don't see the reference they provided as being particularly authoritative. The criticism in question is written by an internet critic and I don't see any backup for his information. 65.25.107.20 18:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1/5 wide release date is stated here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/schedule/ Gunslinger 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has it going to 1500 North American theaters on 1/5 RoyBatty42 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The film opened in limited release in the United States on December, 25, 2006 in New York and Los Angeles. It goes in wide release in January 2007. This is typically done to qualify a film for Academy Award consideration. I work in the film industry and live in Los Angeles. Films typically open here earlier than the rest of the country. For the film to qualify for the forthcoming Oscar awards, it must play at least seven days in Los Angeles; hence, many films open on Christmas Day in only one theater in LA, which thus ensures them of Oscar qualification. 207.69.138.10 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Reception" section

Whoever wrote the bulk of this section is using the page as a platform for criticizing the movie. The purpose of a "Reception" section is to impartially note what critics have said about the film.

abraham 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. It's a long-winded rant. I've hacked it into shape. Lontano 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank the Goddess for that. We wouldn't want any fans of the book to be accurately informed, would we. Agent Cooper 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Coop, perhaps you need to sit down and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down WP:TEA. Your snippy and unproductive commentary is getting a bit tedious.Arcayne 01:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Divergence from Novel

The article fairly screams out for a section pointing out the vast differences between the film and the source novel (characters, background, plot are all different). I hesitate to do it myself as I have only read the article about the novel and not the book itself (and have only seen the film once).RoyBatty42 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well I tried to make a comment along those lines and got my head bitten off for lack of political correctness. Agent Cooper 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then pipe up, little camper - there are plenty more of us who are willing to back someone who is spouting the truth, and not some sanitized version of it. :D I have read the novel when it first came out and re-read it recently. Check out the Wiki entry for the novel; it is more or less spot on as to an abridgemet of the book. There are lots of differences, much like the novel and movie 2010 were vastly different. Both were good, but very different. The same subjective evaluation applies here. Arcayne 08:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. Enjoy your propaganda, yawl. Agent Cooper 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...every little monkey with an axe to grind...Arcayne 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are crazy

I live in the US, so I guess it's no surprise that I have finally seen a trailer for this on TV... I understand this film is old news for basically all the rest of the English-speaking world, but I still want to actually watch the bloody thing before I know every single aspect about it. Thanks. ;)--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Then don't read the entry. It's not like you weren't warned there were spoilers.

What did you think "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow." meant? — ceejayoz ^talk 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hibbs Review

Can someone tell me why the title of the link isn't used as a hyperlink, while the URL is being shown instead? How do I fix it? Thanks. - MSTCrow 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this identified as a British film?

The info box identifies this as "Country UK."

The film was financed and released by Universal Pictures, which is a French and American company. The director is a Mexican citizen. All but one of the credit screenwriters is an American (the other is the director). The cast is both British and English. It was shot in both England and Argentina. Post production was in California.

So how exactly is this a "British" film? 207.69.138.10 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a British/American co-production, for the reasons you mentioned -- but it was released in the U.K. before anywhere else. Lontano 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"User:207.69.138.10|207.69.138.10" makes some good points... Geoffrey C Vargo 06:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a British only film due to the fact that the company that actually produced it is British, Quietus Productions. That is the only criteria used to determine a films nationality, the production company, not the funding, not the director or actors but who actually makes it. Ben W Bell talk 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1984

Is the section comparing this film to Nineteen Eighty-Four necessary? The similiarities aren't powerful enough to suggest this film was directly inspired by Orwell's novel. What's next? Maybe a section comparing to The Last Man or Mad Max or Waterworld. It just seems pointless. Thoughts? Gunslinger 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I believe the style and setting of the film certainly reflect what is popularly known as an Orwellian State. "An attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past (including the "unperson"--a person whose past existence is expunged) practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the situations depicted in his fictional novels, particularly his political novel Nineteen Eighty-Four." as quoted from the wiki page on the term orwellian. I think Children of men most definitely references at least a few of these ideas, don't you? --Tapsell 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the plot had more similiarities to Hell Comes to Frogtown then anything else. I mean minus the Frog People, it is almost a carbon copy of Hell Comes.

I agree that the comparisons to 1984 are mostly minor (a male, married protagonist in a dystopian London, with the word MINISTRY in the background once). Not having seen the film, I cannot say whether in fact there are more, perhaps far more pervasive and pointed comparisons to be made but as presented here it doesn't seem to warrant mention. Zahir13 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just on the comparisons note, did anyone else who has played Half-Life 2 think they were watching a movie filmed in City17? Myself and a friend of mine had the same thought after watching the film. Any idea if the director or set/costume designer has mentioned it as in influence? Timmie.merc 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell comes to Frogtown?? You are one crazy peep, Zahir13. :) Seriously though, while 1984 was not the first or best novel of a dystopian future set in England, it was and is an enduring one which keeps resonating today. That modern writers are influenced by it when writing about a future that isn't all Trekkish is reasonable; indeed, it would be unreasonable to think that it hadn't come up as an influence. Are there shades of 1984 in the novel Children of Men? Yes, absolutely. Are there shades of Orwell' novel in the movie? I simply don't see it. There is more Kafka and Nietzche than Orwell there. If anything, the movie undercuts the dystopic quality of the novel substantially, and replaces it with something far more hollywood. Is that a bad thing? Maybe. Frankly, I don't know. I like both.What can i say, I can't have Clive Owen as Bond, so I will take him in whatever role a director is smart enough to cast him in.Arcayne 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has brought up Brazil (film). —Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And you think Brazil is appropriate for what reason, exactly? Sure. I get the reference to 1984, but Brazil and Children of Men are only related in that they are both movies, and both use bipedal hominids. Gee, why not compare it to Planet of the Apes? :)Arcayne 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only conclude that you've never seen Brazil. The similarities are so numerous, it would be a waste of my time to explain all of them to you. Suffice it to say that both protagonists are low-level bureaucrats working within a futuristic, post-apocalyptic police state beset by daily acts of terrorism, where suspects are routinely tortured and plastic surgery is routine for the elite; children of the elite in both films are disfigured in some way, etc... —Viriditas | Talk 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget about dystopia; that sounds like America currently! Of course I have seen it, Viri (on a personal note, it was the first movie I ever wrote a film review for- and was paid for it - Yay!) And frankly, despite the cursory comparisons (which we can certainly go into on the Brazil article discussion page), Gilliam (having been one of the crafters of the Monty Python stuff) meant Brazil to be a tongue in cheek view of Dystopia. He succeeded fabulously. Again, that movie has nothing to do with Children of Men, which is the subject here. :)Arcayne 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that every time a book or movie deals with an even moderately restrictive government, somebody starts hollering about Nineteen Eighty-Four? Those who actually read that book should know that the only people Big Brother was watching were the Party members; average working-class people (the Proles) were allowed to do pretty much as they pleased. They had kids, watched sports, gambled, worked in factories, and lived pretty normal urban lives.

All the government did in Children of Men was not let illegal aliens cross the border as they please. Um, yeah - most governments do that. (Think I can just stroll into France and hang out for as long as I'd like? Of course not.) Oh, and at one point a couple of cops pulled over a car with a blasted out windshield, blood-soaked passengers, and a dead woman in the front seat. Yep, pretty invasive. Sheesh. ;) Kafziel ^Talk 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might find a more collaborative environment, Kafziel, if you adopted a more polite approach to your criticism. It doesn't aid your post when you make errors regarding the plot of 1984 (while Winston Smith was in fact a member of the Outer Party, most of the 'proles' were as well, who were not out gambling and watching sports, as you mentioned - lol). Take a gander the avtual book or if lazy,at the wiki entry for the novel; it might prove useful. As well, you might want to watch Children of Men again; there were a few more governmental aberrations that you seemed to notice. For example, the Fugees were sent to Bexhall, never to be seen again. Did you think they were all deported? The entry to the prison scene doesn't serve to imply any sort of intention to deport these folk. A Final Solution sort of arrangement seems to be more likely. The dehumanization and devaluation of Man are key themes in 1984. Ergo, the comparison on a number of points. Again, a spirit of politeness will tend to assist you in pointing out your concerns about articles, or posts from other users. Good luck in te future. :)Arcayne 23:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, no offense was intended. I'm known for a somewhat dry sense of humor, but if you take a look at my user page you'll see I'm not some nut running around being an asshole all over the place. I'm a very established editor here and a pretty nice guy. I was just speaking in general terms; anytime a movie has a government, people talk about Orwell. It's extremely cliche. And no, Winston was most certainly not the same as the proles. The Outer Party is the middle class. The proles are not part of the Outer Party, and they do not have telescreens in their homes or children reporting them to the Thought Police. You seem to be missing a gigantic chunk of the book there.

As for Children, there's no reason to read anything into Bexhill; refugees were sent there for holding (rather than being deported to their homelands, perhaps a worse fate), violent criminal elements developed, and the military had to use force to settle it. I don't recall seeing any "final solution" sort of thing, and even if there had been a gas chamber on every corner, that still has nothing to do with Orwell. Or Kafka, for that matter. Kafziel ^Talk 04:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Negative Reviews

Who removed all the links to negative reviews of the movie? This is out of process and highly inappropriate. - MSTCrow 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP 69.132.48.39. Personally, I think both sides (pro-Cuaron/pro-James) are being a bit militant here. I don't think the movie should be criticised by partisan commentators within the article (EDIT: though their criticisms are briefly summarized already, which is appropriate), but if it is being criticised elsewhere (by whoever), links to those comments should not be deleted. Lontano 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have two sections for reviews of this movie: one for the positive, the other for the negative. Perhaps even a third for neutral ones. What do the rest of you think? Geoffrey C Vargo 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should have either. This is sompletely an NPOV issue. This is Wikipedia; we are supposed to leave our egos and personal preferences at the door. (sound of me getting off my soapbox). We could simply state that the film opened to mixed reviews, in in fact that is what happened. If the reviews are generally positive, we say so. If they generally negative, then we say the movie has been panned.Arcayne 03:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to undermine the propagandistic purpose of the film? I think we need more positive reviews, not less. Agent Cooper 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't a propagandistic film, Coop. Considering that the sole reference used to post a bad review is one of those über-religious sites - a bozo no-no, as far as WP:RS is concerned - I think that there is an inclination for some yokels to get it into their heads that this is an anti-religion film. We post the reviews that are in keeping with WP:RS, only. A review of a film site or a news site is good as (they have no ax to grind or philosophical bent prejudicing them beforehand to the film). This sounds like I am saying we should only post positive reviews. Not at all. I am saying that when we use neutral reviews, we are more likely to have a more balanced review. Ergo, a movie is good for all the conventional reasons, and not because some fringe element took exception to aspects of the film. For example, The Last Temptation of Christ was an okay film (it had technical as well as story problems), but received a lambasting in the religious press on baseless or out-of-contxt rumors. I would prefer to have us remove that sort of nonsense from Our Encyclopedia. We are not in the business of fair and balanced here. We are in the neutrality business. There is a difference.Arcayne 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the film is propagandistic. Have you even read the interviews with the director? He purposefully set out to promote a certain type of view. —Viriditas | Talk 04:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's odd; I hadn't heard that. Source?

If the film was criticized in religious press, it wouldn't be unfair to say that it was criticized in religious press, for foo and bar. Now, let's avoid bozo sites (for the same reason we don't cite Free Republic as "conservatives feel..."), but there's no need to ignore certain press just because it has a certain bent; instead, we simply identify the bent and give only due mention. (This means mainstream press, good or bad, needs the bulk of the article.) In the interest of due mention, we really need more than a single bad review in a site with a stated bias, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reading up on directorial commentary since being blindsided by Cuarón's ill-advised comments regarding Theo's fate (not detailed in the book), and I am unsure what comments Viriditas is referring to. Could he be so kind as to cite the reference for that opinion here, so we could all see it? Despite all that hooey, is the film in and of itself propagandistic? If so, please illuminate us as to how it is such. I get the dystopian (or rather, anti-topia) aspects of how Gov't is "bad" and the Li'l Guy/Underdog is "good." If that is as far as the propaganda goes, I think it well covered by the dystopia label. As for the inclusion of negative reviews by religious (yet mainstream) press, like Christian Science Monitor or some such news venue, i guess I could live with User: AManInBlack's suggestion in one form or an other. I think we are right on the bleeding edge of WP:RS, though. I would feel more comfy if a mainstream source could be found.Arcayne 12:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dogs and cats

It seemed like just about everybody was keeping dogs and cats in the movie, as if they were surrogate babies, another thing that isn't mentioned, but just is. I'd like to add something about this, but it's pretty OR and interpretive. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason it isn't mentioned in the article, Zoe, is that that aspect of the novel did not make it into the movie. While the presence of pets is noteworthy, and is probably for the reason you indicate, it is not said or evenheavily implied. It should not be added.Arcayne 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. If there is a well-known, reliable critic who mentions this in a review, then I would have no problem putting it in the article. However, while the concept is notable, and while Zoe's rationale is probably true, it's also OR. -- Kicking222 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the animal symbolism is extremely important, and should be discussed pending RS. —Viriditas | Talk 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Viriditas, I think you are confusing the symbolism of pets utilized in the book with how it is incorporated in the movie (which is to say, not at all). It wasn't really present in the movie except as a background scene while Theo is driving to visit his friend at the museum. If you want to expand upon the symbolism beyond that which is presented in the article on the novel, Children of Men, you should feel free to do; the same emphasis was not utilized int he movie, and therefore, should not be included.Arcayne 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You must have seen a different fim. There were animals present in almost every major scene. —Viriditas | Talk 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I did. However, I was blesed in that I was able to see it at my leisure a number of times. Were there aninals in every scene? Yes; it is England after all - there are plenty of animalks there. Were they presented in a light similar to the book in any scene aside from in passing (the zebra scene)? No, I do not believe so. Were pets presented as children in any scene? Clearly, they were not. Therefore, it would not seem to be of considerable note.

Might I suggest that you craft a header that discusses the differences between the book and the movie? That would seem to be the perfect place to discuss how animals/pets are treated differently in both renderings. :)Arcayne 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Must agree with Viriditas here. I never read the book, but I noticed that there were pets all over the place in the movie, and it was not just because British people have pets - come on! Prime example: the Gypsy (?) woman who helped them in the refuge camp was carrying a little dog all over the place... like a baby. I don't know if this should be in the article or not, but Arcayne, seriously, don't you recall that woman's dog? --Chinawhitecotton 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the burning cattle in the field, cats at Jasper's (didn't he also mention rats?) and at Luke's (kitten crawling on Theo's leg) along with the cows in the barn (nativity-like scene), police dogs, zebra and camel in the park, and the small dog in the prison camp as well as a small herd of sheep in the battle zone. I'm sure I'm missing a few. —Viriditas | Talk 07:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not discounting either Viriditas' or ChinaWhite Cotton's viewpoint here. There might be something to it, but the fact that they are not specifically addressed by either word or action, and instead treated as set-dressing says that the director and screenplay writer decided to not include those aspects of the book. I think it is worth pointing out the reasonable proposal that in a society that has become infertile, the idea of spaying and neutering pets might become as abhorrent as (insert abhorrent crime here). My grandmother used to have cats, so I can tell you that un-fixed cats tend to fill a home right quick. Another thing to consider is whether, if you lived in a society that had become morbidly self-involved, you would want to spend your remaining days performing such societal-maintenance-related duties as pet fixing. Lastly, the reason people maintained herd animals was to provide for the day when the canned goods ran out (not having folk to run the canneries or factories). Just a couple of thought...Arcayne 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Theo Dead?

I recently reverted a change from an anonymous user who changed that "Theo slumped unconscious in the boat" to "Theo slumped dead in the boat". Neither the book nor the movie state that he is dead, and while I personally think at the end of both media he was circling the drain, it isn't for us to make that leap. What do you folks think?Arcayne 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Unconscious" is the most appropriate edit. You made the right change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say he's pretty much dead. If the bullet hit him in the midsection, like in his stomach, he would probably only have 10-15 minutes to live, which would have been about the time it took them from the building to the floater in the water. I'll attempt to find a resource on this on if he died or not. He was bleeding pretty heavily, and clutching his stomach. Disinclination 04:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually User: Disinclination, he was not shot in the stomach, but rather the more generic term "the side." As someone who has been shot in the back before, I can pretty much attest to the fact that it smarts something fierce, but death doesn't happen in 10-15 minutes. Perhaps we should not make any assumptions as to Theo's medical condition, seeing as neither of us is a doctor or trauma surgeon. As for a source as to whether he died, you simply won't find it becasue it doesn't exist. The book (ie, the source material) doesn't specify that Theo dies, nor does the movie. It's just one of those little unresolved things in life. If you think he died, that is your prerogative. The movie and the book leave it open-ended specifically because it is immaterial to the plot of the book. Theo had already done his part to save the human race, and Kee's baby was going to be named after his dead son. Frankly, I think having him tossing back mai-tais on the beach six months later would have been rather anticlimactic, don't you think?Arcayne 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I changed it back to his fate being left ambiguous, simply because we don't know. I personally think he died, but others say he could have just gone unconscious from the blood loss. We have reached no consensus about this, so I feel the best way to go about this would be to say that we simply do not know. If you can find a source where it says he died, like a director's or an actor's interview with someone, and we can know for sure, that would be great. But the way it is left, clearly we never find out if he died or not. He was bleeding really heavily, without any medically attention. I'm just asking that we keep it this way, until we find out for sure, because either of our suggestions (dead vs. unconsciousness) are POV. Disinclination 03:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, i think you are misinterpreting POV here, since the novel clearly states that Theo "slumped unconscious" in the boat. Unconscious, mind you, and not dead. Granted, this seems like splitting hairs, but if the author is not going to define the ultimate fate of Theo, it is not up to us as Wikipedia online encyplopedians to define it for his amd posterity. Your change to reflect amiguity seems a fair compromise, though. As I said before, you won't find a credible reference, unless you get it from the author himself (and you had better hustle up with that, as she is almost 90 years old), so I think since there are some who are going to miss the point of the ending anyway and assume that Theo dies, the compromise of ambiguity is okay with me.Arcayne 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that he died. Surely the writer and director have discussed this? —Viriditas | Talk 10:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no they haven't. The reason they haven't - I feel - is that people focusing on the fate of Theo are completely missing the point of both the movie and the book. Theo actions helped preserve the human race, and the largest battle he fought he won - he overcame his depression and self-loathing to act on behalf of someone and something larger than himself. So, what you think is obvious is left vague for a reason: the author didn't really want you to focus on Theo's end or continuation; she wanted you to focus on what Theo did with the time he had.Arcayne 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the director Theo dies. - JenGe 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

“As much as the Nativity reference in regards to spiritual archetype [in Children of Men] is present,” says the director, “for Clive Owen’s character his archetype is more Moses. He dies before he sees the Promised Land. The difference is that, in the Bible, Moses died before seeing the Promised Land because he doubted and he was punished while here [Owen] dies because he doesn’t need to see the Promised Land."

http://www.moviefreak.com/artman/publish/interviews_alfonsocuaron.shtml

Alfonso Cuaron: ...You see the Clive Owen character more than Joseph is Moses. He's the guy who dies before seeing the Promised Land. The difference is that in the Bible Moses dies before he sees the Promised Land because he doubted. In Clive's character, he dies before seeing the Promised Land because he doesn't need to see the Promised Land. He recovered what he was looking for which was his sense of hope. And as long as you have that sense of hope, then you do not need confirmation of things.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/cuaron.php

Also, it doesn't matter if he died in the book. This is about the movie. Several, several events were changed. Julian never dies in the novel, yet does in the book. Kee is never in the novel, but she's the one who is pregnant, not Julian. But its great that someone found a source. Disinclination 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What is also interesting in those comments is that the director states why Theo dies in the film. The connection and symbolism to Moses and the Promised Land is irrelevant if he only passes out. JenGe 22:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So, now we know that Theo dies, can we make the change to the plot? —Viriditas | Talk 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in charge but I would say of course since the director states it plain and clear. Just be sure to link to one of the sources for those who are still having problems with this. JenGe 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Moses connection for a moment. The baby's name, "Dylan", is Welsh for "son of the sea". The name "Moses" is translated as "savior" and also "drawn out of the water". Then you have Theodore Falon. "Theodore" is Greek for "God's gift" (savior?) while Faron is Spanish for "pharaoh", and Moses is said to have been adopted by the daughter of the Egyptian Pharoah. —Viriditas | Talk 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See what a little research can do? :) This is precisely what I was looking for. Cite the quote (I would go so far as to include these quotes as a separate header as Post Production Notes) and footnote the sentence that states that Theo's character des in the movie. It is left vague in the book however, which bears pointing out.Arcayne 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether or not the director thinks that Theo died. Saying that he died gives a false impression of the mood at the end of the movie. It is by no means clear from viewing the film that he died, and that is what the audience is left with. I think the ambiguity is very important. I seem to be in the minority here, but I think that you're interfering with the overall meaning of the movie.Celsiana 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, Celsiana; It was my impression from the book and the movie that Theo's mortality was not as important as his inner struggle. However, if the director is - and there is no better word for it - stupid enough to let the cat out of the bag and remove the ambiguity, then it is not our place to gainsay his moronic lack of restraint.The plot is the plot, and if the majority of Users decide that inclusion of his comments confirming Theo's fuzzy death, then that's the way it is. That is what Wikipedia is about. You are allowed to argue your point, but if a majority rules against you (and by majority, I mean an overwhelming one, not just two or three people with a nut on), you simply shrug and move on. Monitor the discussion. Maybe you aren't the only person who feels this way. Arcayne 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The film adaptation is structured according to the hero's journey, a guideline that demands Theo's death, whether spiritual or physical. Theo is spiritually dead at the beginning of the film, and while the journey leads to his physical death, he is spiritually reborn at the end: Theo's sacrifice saves humanity. There is an enormous amount of clues given to the viewer, from the lingering sound of the bomb at the café, to the acknowledgment of avidya (ignornance) by Nigel in the Art Ark, to the sound of the bullet in the car, to the tunnels and "gates" travelled through by the hero; first to begin his journey with Kee, we see Theo and Julian emerge from a tunnel, and lastly we see Theo and Kee leave the Bexhill water dept. in a boat, emerging from a broken, tunnel-like grate into the open, foggy ocean. The archetypes are present in every scene. I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that the hero has travelled through the six realms in the process. The Taoist and Christian philosophy is also telling. The yin and yang, the relationship between faith and chance, we are told, has some bearing on the deaths of Dylan, Julian, and Jasper, the three people that Theo loves: all three died by chance, whereas Theo sacrificed himself willingly, faithfully, to save Kee and her baby. So, I don't see Theo's physical death as ambiguous or unimportant; I see it as necessary and consistent with the adaptation. —Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ordering of information

A lot of background information is put into the article too early, I think. I mean, the stuff on Theo's child (we don't even know he was married, or had a kid, until well after his meeting with Julian), Syd's involvement and his connection with Jasper. If no one has a problem with it, I'm going to go through the article and add it in where it should properly be. Disinclination 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hearing loss comment

I was curious about the comment that Juilianne Moore's character said in the movie about the ringing in Theo's ears. She said it was a 'swan song' for dying cells and that once the ringing stops, he will never be able to hear the frequency again. Very interesting; is it accurate? I couldn't find out anything about it elsewhere. Lebroyl 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ear and Hearing loss? :) Disinclination 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, ok. What User:Disinclination was trying to say is that he doesn't know, and decided to send you on a wild goose chase instead (personally, I hate that; if you don't know, just say so, and not try to sound all authoritarian). I was kinda annoyed by the response, so I called my friend, who is a doctor. She made a few calls and discovered that no, it is not accurate. It was a direct lift from the novel, and while pretty, is not accurate. I hope an actual answer was of assistance to you.Arcayne 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting incorrect interpretation you have there. I only listed two articles on Wikipedia that might have helped if the person looked. I honestly have no idea why you're assuming I was sounding 'authoritarian'. I am also a girl, you might want to remember than for the future. Back to the subject on hand, all I know is that if your ears are continually ringing for over 15 minutes, you should go see someone about it. Otherwise, I have no other knowledge on the matter. Disinclination 21:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a wild goose chase; I had checked the Hearing loss article before but had not thought to check the one on ears. I don't mind doing a little research on my own, rather than being handed an answer with no references. You don't have to be snide, Arcayne. Lebroyl 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's something from the hearing loss article:

Exposure to very loud noise (90 dB or more, such as jet engines at close range) can cause progressive hearing loss. Exposure to a single event of extremely loud noise (such as explosions) can also cause temporary or permanent hearing loss.

Might be helpful? Disinclination 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking back over my answer, I guess it was a little snippy. I apologize, Miss Dis. :) Of course, permanent hearing loss can occur from loud explosions, but the ringing in the ears - I have been informed by knowledgeable sources is not the 'death scream of the eardrums' (or whatever). It is apparently the nerves sending ghost sounds to the brain, prolly akin to ghost itching from missing limbs.Arcayne 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This popped up in the trivia section of the main article:

"In the scene where Miriam fakes religious fervour to destract the military guards from Kee's labor, she is beaten, covered with a hood and dragged out to an area with many other hooded "fugees" appearing to be tortured and hung by the military. Much of what is seen briefly here was made to resemble the photos from the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal."

I am unsure where the user thinks that the scene was "made to resemble" the Abu Ghraib abuses. While the similarities are crystal clear, I think it is an avoidance of neutrality and a failure to provide citable sources to state something like that unequivocally. If a reputable source can be found for the mention, it can be added again. Until then, I am going to alter it to reflect NPOV and citable sources. Arcayne 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In an interview, Cuarón was asked what he was "trying to translate in creating such an older, ancient feel in a futuristic setting?" He answered in part, "...It's the present...We were thinking Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and The Maze. And those were our visual references." [1] —Viriditas | Talk 13:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to eliminate the trivia section entirely, and merge content into new or existing sections. —Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Most film articles have a trivia section, covering aspects of the film that are anecdotal in nature, and not germane to the plot, set dressing or cast information. Please take a look at other films, and reference their construction in comparison before suggesting an exicin g of an entire section that other users spent time creating and adding to. :) Arcayne 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As I learned the other day, most National Park articles include information plagiarized from NPS websites; that doesn't make it right no matter how much time editors spent doing it. Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, and whenever possible, trivia should be grouped with like information and merged into existing or new sections. See also: WP:TRIV. —Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe we are talking about National Park articles here, and while I am familiar with the 'low bar criteria' inherent when lazy users limit themselves to adding trivia, sometimes info about he production (and I must stress that non-citable sources of trivia are frequently pulled almost as soon as they are added, especially when they are inflammatory comments or rumour-mongering), they are common, espcially when publicity or "The Making Of..." specials allow for the introduction of trivia. If you are advocating a new policy in regards to how films are treated, I would urge you to submit your personal opinion for consideration to WP: Village Pump, wherein new policy is born. Until then, there is a current standard in place for film which seems to be policed well by the membership.Arcayne 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I already explained it, but I'll try again. Whenever important trivia entries can be grouped with related trivia entries, they can be merged into existing sections or new sections can be created and expanded. In most cases, trivia sections can be entirely eliminated from an article when this process is followed. Informative sections help the reader. —Viriditas | Talk 07:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In looking over this bit of 'trivia', the point that I had issue with was not so much the Abu Gharib scandal (though I do agree an outside source to confirm it would be helpful) but I was wondering why it states that Miriam's religious fervor was "fake." It could be that this is mentioned in the novel or cited explicitly somewhere else, but to my knowledge Miriam is a very spiritual person. She clasps her hands over Julian's head in a religious manner just before Julian dies; she performs Julian's death ceremony chanting "Shanti, shanti, shanti" while moving her hands over her body; during the car ride from the safe house both her and Kee are seen chanting; she practices yoga-like movements during Theo's 2nd visit to Jasper's house; she tells Jasper that "Everything has a reason" (a typically religious idea which she repeats to Theo after Jasper is shot by the Fishes); she links Jaspers "fate and chance" to "ying and yang" (a Taoist -- though not necessarily religious -- idea); and Kee talks about Miriam had started her on "voodoo woodoo" to help the baby. So it seems to me at least that her cry (I believe it was "Angel Gabriel, aid us in our time of need", but I haven't seen the movie that recently) was not fake fervor, but was a legitimate, heartfelt religious cry for help. However, I fully accept that I could be wrong in this and was wondering if anyone has anything substantial to support or refute this. 72.66.27.87 03:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, she only started chanting like that after the guard noticed Kee. Everything before that, Miriam does not display qualities that seem to make her ack like a religious maniac. She was willing to defend Kee from anything and everything. Plus, Gabriel isn't apart of voodooism (if such a word exists). Disinclination 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC

Agreed. While Miriam was spiritual, her speaking in tongues (or whatever) was specifically timed to shift the attention of the guard from Kee's agonized contraction pains to Miriam as a possible troublemaker. I think that was clear. :) Arcayne 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this bit of trivia a little awkwardly worded?

Despite the number of theaters, Children of Men on full release in the United States in its 2nd week of wide release in 1, 209 American theaters took in $10 million dollars despite being released while the top movie Night at the Museum was released in over 3, 730 American theaters and pulled in $23 million dollars.

Its because it originally said that Children of Men should have made more than Night at the Museum, because NatM was released I suppose 'world wide', while Children was only released in select theatres, until the next week. Children of Men should have made more (it makes sense, really), but those parts were deleted out, I suppose, for PoV. Disinclination 07:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Eternity's Sunrise

What do people make of the reference to William Blake in the title of track two on the original score? Or is this supposed to mean something else? —Viriditas | Talk 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the track listing section. I've also discovered that the director is familiar with Blake, and get this, they share the same birthdate. I'm wondering just how much of William Blake's mythology we will find in the film, and if any critics will pick up on it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG Jeff Minter!

Jasper, the character played by Michael Caine is the spitting image of British indie games developer Jeff Minter, cardigan and all. Their dogs are even of the same breed. Silly coincidence, but it amused me. 84.230.137.1 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Noncompliance??

I fail to see what is noncompliant about this article. AgentCooper, are you just angry that we're not addressing the negative reviews of the movie? Find some negative reviews and put up links for them at the bottom, for chrissakes. Metacritic and RottenTomatoes have massively positive reviews up there, so that's the information we have up there. What more do you expect from a Wiki article? And I see very little that's so creative or so non-neutral that it merits having a big ol' NONCOMPLIANT tag at the top of the page. People have worked hard on this page, and users are gonna see the big tag at the top and not read any of what's below. I'm removing the noncompliance tag, and anyone who wants to dispute it is free to debate it with me. I just don't see how the ENTIRE ARTICLE can be seen as vageuly "noncompliant" with Wikipedia standards.

abraham 06:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The {{noncompliant}} tag is probably mostly in reference to the "Set dressing" subsection, which is really purely original research based on what viewers saw in the movie. For example: "Despite the state of the world, the wealthy appear to lead lives of great privilege, as these works of art are stored in a section of the city walled off by armed guards." I suppose it's a redundant tag, but AgentCooper might have his own reasons. The article is nowhere near Wikipedia standards -- take a look at WP:FA#Media for Wikipedia's finest film articles. In this article, te lead paragraphs are underwhelming, the plot section is far too lengthy, cinematography has bits and pieces of a casual style (i.e., "there is some suspicion that this is incorrect", suspicion from whom?), the set dressing is clearly unnecessary viewer OR, the reception section does not explain why critics liked it, music information is unnecessary listy unless critics have strongly noted music in the film (which I'm not sure if they have), and trivia sections should be integrated. Sorry, but this article is not compelling in any way. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nowhere near" standards? I don't know where to begin with that assessment. Noticing parts of the set dressing might be a bit much, and perhaps should be re-edited so that the factual bits go into "trivia"... but "nowhere near" the standards of Wikipedia? Have you seen the tripe that gets put on a pedestal for other film articles? The "Themes" sections that are nothing more than junior-high level "film analysis" about how "freedom" is a theme in the movie? Personally, I find this particular article to be clean, efficient, factual, and comprehensive. It tells you everything you need to know, and offers an interesting read for someone who wants to know more about the film (i.e. what the Arabic grafitti says, or the possible Hamlet reference, or the reference to The Wasteland, or the information about the single-shot technique). I simply fail to see how this article is "nowhere near" the standards of Wikipedia. The fact that there are two soundtracks merits listing them, and if you have a problem with that, then just create a separate "Children of Men (Soundtracks)" page. No one will stop you. Have a problem with an unsourced statement? Put in a "this statement requires a citation" bit. I'm just saying that this article has been unduly criticized. abraham 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, film articles should have a core Production section in which the production cycle is outlined -- development, pre-production, production, post-production, and distribution. They can be broken down into subsections (if this article was developed further, "Cinematography" would be a subsection). Like many film articles to which you refer, this article has an unnecessarily extensive plot section, though I don't mean to say that it's the worst of the bunch. I have to disagree with you, though, that the article is "comprehensive"; the content, especially production, is slightly more than bare bones. Do share what you think has been put on a pedestal for other film articles -- the ones that achieved Featured Article status are far more developed than this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more needs to be done about production, but I for one don't have access to that knowledge. Can we simply ask others to contribute that, rather than putting up a "noncompliance" blanket statement? As for other examples of limp "Themes" sections, look no further than the featured article for V_for_Vendetta_(film). Sure, it sources all of its obvious and idiotic "themes" such as "totalitarianism" and "nationalism"... but does such a section contribute anything to the appreciation of the film, except maybe by those who have absolutely no familiarity with politics? I'm too tired to come up with more examples now, and am going to bed. Other users, have y'all any thoughts? abraham 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates point out the flaws of an article. You mentioned that people wouldn't read the article with the noncompliance tag at the top, which seems to be an unsubstantiated claim. Also, you seem to be biased against themes for some reason; the Themes section at V for Vendetta appears to be reasonably well-cited, probably not by FA standards, though. Who are you to determine whether people are privy to this "obvious and idiotic" information or not? What is obvious to you may not be obvious to other people. Just keep that in mind. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Point granted. I put too much of my own opinion into the "Themes" argument (it's a personal pet peeve I have with Wikipedia, but not one that I really have the wherewithal to argue, given my lowly status on this site). All I'm saying is that calling the whole article "noncompliant" is overkill. And I challenge you to find me a first-time Wikipedia user who sees that big red tag at the top of a page and won't figure that the whole article is highly suspect. I think there are aspects of the article that are suspect, but certainly not the whole enchilada. I also think it's silly that you and I are having this argument, when AgentCooper was the one who put the tag there in the first place, and has seemed to have the most problems with the page, in general. I'd like to hear his reasoning. abraham 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the "noncompliant" tag is necessary, as I would prefer more specific tags that help point out to editors what could be done better with the content, such as {{expand-section}} and {{toomuchtrivia}}. We'll have to see what Agent Cooper's intent was, but I was sharing my perception of the film article, as I have worked with primarily film articles here on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not discourage the writing of film summaries- this article and its summary are great. Also, I'm not used to being the Voice of Sunshine, but let's take it easy a bit- you guys are really getting some serious ego into this discussion, which is not good for Wikipedia nor productive in any way, really. So be cool. You will also note, the template in question primarily 1) invites analysis (follow the link "contextualise the fictional nature of the work"), 2) warns against rote plot summary (and notice in the article there is enough interpretation to comply with that guideline) and finally 3) to be careful about violating copyright- IANAL, but since this doesn't duplicate text, and doesn't duplicate the experience of seeing this incredible film, I think we're safe there. brain 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My issue with the Plot section is the length of it. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot." There are approximately 1,945 words in the existing section -- massive overkill. It needs to be summarized to meet the limit. And excuse me for sharing my experienced opinion in the discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you know that I put up the culturally significant negative review and it has been repeatedly removed because it is negative and especially because it is political, and reveals the inversion of political agendas from the book to the film. You're either not paying attention or are playing games. The various references to the fact of or the controversy about the relationship between the film and the novel have been systematically and repeatedly removed, and my protests have been responded to either sophistically or dishonestly. That there is a controversy about the film is a (cultural) fact, not my opinion. The differences between the film and the novel are fact, not my opinion. My opinion of why a right-wing Christian anti-abortion rant by a mystery novelist got turned by the entertainment industry into a left-wing secular rant about the war on terror, or why every indication of this fact, or the further fact that some critics have found this fact interesting, has been repeatedly removed from the article, however, is not a fact. It's not at all relevant. Now even the statement that the film is loosely based on the novel, which isn't even a value judgement (for crissakes, "The Ten Commandments" is loosely based on the book of Exodus, which is no indictment of the Bible or of Cecil B DeMille--would yawl really remove the word "loosely" from that context? Of course not) has also been removed because it might make someone curious about what the differences were, why they exist, and why it's so damn difficult to find that out from an allegedly neutral reference source. Hmmmm. I'm officially bored now. Have your fun promoting your little left-wing propaganda, yawl. Agent Cooper 07:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Arcayne that your addition should not have invoked the NPOV policy, the edit should not have been removed. I've re-added your negative review to indicate the film's detraction from the novel, something that should be more fleshed out here, as comparison and contrast of book and film is rarely executed well. However, I removed the term "loosely" because per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraphs should reflect the content of the article, and one critic's issue with the adaptation of book to film doesn't seem to cut it. I would suggest a strong expansion of the Reception section to indicate why it was so well-received, but dissenters should be noted as well. The negative reviews should also go beyond the complaint that the adaptation was poor, like stand-alone criticism of the film (too long, bad acting, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I rather disagree with your assertions, Erik (while still thinking that you are a pretty nifty person). Coop's addition of the negative neview was not cited using sources with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Aside from not using original material (ie, writing yor own review, bringing your own bag of personal opinions into the article), referenced material must be cited from a neutral source. Just as it would be invalid to ask your mommy if you are the prettiest belle at the ball, it is equally invalid to ask your worst enemy the same thing. The responses you are going to get are not going to be neutral. As well, I read WP: LEAD, and am unsure why you found inspiration to remove the 'loosely' term. It has the virtue of being accurate. Maybe the answer to this problem is to include a header called Controversy in order to provide citable, neutral sources of the film's controversy. That would seem to coordinate efforts to allow folk who have a problem with this movie to address those issues in accordance with WP policy.Arcayne 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Wikipedia's NPOV policy is meant to present information in a neutral tone, which I attempted to do with Agent Cooper's edit: "A religious film reviewer, who interpreted the novel to carry a religious conservative message, criticized the film for transforming the book into a progressive critique of the Bush and Blair administrations." The NPOV policy itself even says, "All editors and all sources have biases." I don't think that Cooper's citation is the best negative review to cite, but the rule of thumb for reviews from specialized backgrounds should be included if they match the themes of the film. For example, would you really edit The Passion without any kind of review from religious film critics? Or Apocalypto without the reviews of those who are Mayan anthropologists? I don't know much about the film, and Cooper's citation seems like a stretch, but in the future, in addition to "neutral" film reviews, there should be permissible reviews from specialized critic (such as one in sci-fi films) that meet reliable source guidelines. For the 'loosely' term, WP:LEAD indicates, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Basically, this article has not addressed how the film is different from the book (which can be done through reviewers' comparisons, such as Cooper's citation), but adding a "flexible" word is your own interpretation, which is original research. If it is "partly based" on the novel, then evidence should be provided in the article's body. Also, in regard to the Controversy section, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view. I think all information pertaining to reviews should fall under a "Critical reaction" section (or something similar), and nothing more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." There are some key parts to this introductory sentence, the relevent part here being reliable source. Cooper did not utilize a reliable source. And yes, it is recognized that all editors and all sources have biases, but it is the mark of the editor and User to recognize their bias and work to free themselves of it while working here. Using NPOV guidelines serves to assist the writer and editor to distance themselves from their own bias while working, and RS guidelines gives us a filter by which to screen out those sources which inherently maintain a specific bias. I think that if you have an idea regarding 'specialized background' sources, you should direct that idea to the one place where new policy (for that is what you are proposing) is made, at the Village Pump (WP:Village Pump). Regarding your question regarding the edit of Last Temptation of Christ (film), I would not include a source - religious or secular - which could not be considered reliable (ie, factual and neutral). Instead, I would likely construct the article as it has been done, noting the perceived controversial reception of the film by including a header, such as Controversy, or Critical Reception (being different than review in that biased sources can be generally alluded to). Since some people (and I feel that this number is far too small yet vocal to warrant serious consideration) feel that there is an enormous public outcry that has thus far gone unheard, I say to hell with avoiding the header. If people want it and are going to look for it, I say add it. Personally, I think it is silly to give preferential treatment to specialized reviewers. That is a slippery slope that WP has been able so far to avoid. It is so very much easier to simply give a nod to biased reaction by paraphrasing their views, and allowing the reader to follow up ontheir own. Of course, sources would need to be cited, I guess. In regards to the usage of the word 'loosely', I do not think it to be a violation of WP:OR at all. It is in fact loosely adapted from the novel. I again suggest that if a number of people are concerned with the differences between it and the book, then by all means, create a header to point them all out. That would seem to address 90% of the haggling going on.Arcayne 12:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. There was a section called Reception, that was where I put the negative review, right after the wonderfully unmisleading cite that said that there were no negative reviews. Of course it was removed. Agent Cooper 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"A nod to biased reaction"? It's bias to not love this film as much as he does? Arcayne seems to have utterly missed my point because of his own bias, or perhaps because he hasn't read the novel, but before I get to that, I should say that I still think "loosely" is accurate, whereas "partly based" implies that it is also partly based on something else, which it isn't. Here's the problem: people often read books because they liked a movie, or see a movie because they liked a book. Lots of people are quite passionate about this--I recall all sorts of anxieties by Tolkien fans during the Peter Jackson shooting over whether he would be faithful to the book or not. Now my own critical judgment is that excellent films can be made by "betraying" mediocre sources as easily as the other way around, and that faithfulness to a source is far from an absolute value. I consider the distance between the book and the film a fact, noted both by critics who liked the film (the New York Times) and who hated it (First Things). Here's another example:

"Children of Men is based on a story penned by P.D. James, a professing Christian better known for her mystery novels. Her narrative has been streamlined and revised by no fewer than five screenwriters to become an adrenalin-rush action movie. Once Theo hits the road with Kee, we're off and running, dodging armed pursuers until we reach a war zone that recalls the finale of Stanley Kubrik's Full Metal Jacket. Fans of the novel may argue about Cuarón's many and varied departures. Some heighten the story's connections to present-day crises; others cloud James' moral vision. In the book, Julian is the pregnant woman; Kee was invented to connect the film version to the present-day crises in Africa. In the book, euthanasia is depicted as a horrible crime against human dignity, but Cuarón recasts it as an act of heroic mercy." http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2006/childrenofmen.html

I think the political inversion (a rather conservative book, a rather liberal film) to be pretty flipping obvious, and probably easily sourceable by director and author interviews, if I had the time. One of the purposes of entertainment-related articles in Wikipedia is to provide consumer guidance without expressing bias--someone might recommend a book to me, and I look it up and discover that it's in a genre that I generally don't like, so I don't read it, for example. I can easily imagine a reader of the book or a viewer of the film checking the article to find out more about the counterpart work to decide if they should follow up with it. It's not an assessment or an evaluation, it's just information that probably has relevance for wikipedia users. The problem I have with what's happening here is that the writers on this article obviously are quite fond of the film, and I get the impression that few have read the book, or read it sensitively and closely. Thus the authors here have their own biases. The assumption is that there is something invidiously non-objective about anything a religious or conservative writer says because they are conservative. So when a conservative author says "hm, this film is quite different from the book--I rather liked the book, didn't much like the film" you all are dismissing the underlying *fact* involved, which is that the two items are importantly different, and in ways that the typical reader of this article might very well care about. For example, if you loved the film, I wouldn't think you would love the book at all, because they are so very different. Because it is a matter of fact, it cuts both ways for both audiences. I honestly believe that this useful information can be conveyed, gingerly perhaps, without in the least bit suggesting that the film or book are good or bad. But I am at my wits end trying to get this across because the people who noticed it are fans of the book, and the authors of this article either haven't read it or don't get it, and are predisposed to be hostile to anyone who doesn't fit that description.

Why the tag? Because every attempt to flag the fact of the difference between the book and the film got taken down, not because mentioning that there are people who didn't like the film for such-and-such reason violates NPOV (that's a fact too, about reception), but because the article has become a fansite, and one of the most striking things about the film, its huge difference from the book, has to be suppressed because it leads to questions that the authors here instinctively don't want asked. Your biases are so deep you don't even know you have them. I am firmly convinced that there is systematic bias infecting this process, that it is essentially political bias, and I ask that people take a hard look at themselves for at least a minute before they delete the word "loosely" from a description of a film that, for example, turns one of the book's villains (the protagonist's ex-wife) into one of the film's heroes. Sheesh! I'd say that any film that turns a villain into a hero is "loosely" based on its source. But if it's really important that no one know that, well let's keep it a closely guarded secret. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it? The concealment of information? Agent Cooper 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's address what you've posted, Coop, and I will be kind enough to give you some insight into me, as you've referenced me specifically. I have read the book and seen the movie (having written a college paper on one and written a review of the other). And I get it the metaphor of both, contrary to what you have insinuated. Frankly, I am not a big fan of either one, so I have none of the huge emotional investment you keep referring to. Something I am passionate about is the responsibility that WP places in us as Users and editors. There is an enormous potential for abuse, and only by all of us being diligent in maintaining an honest and neutral point of view does it endure.

I am glad you agree with my application of the term 'loosely adapted'. It is not a matter of WP:OR (orginal research). It is clearly different, and I've clearly stated that that's okay, as you would have known had you bothered to read the previous posts on the subject. The only "invidious" statements I am finding in this article are pretty much yours. You assume we are all part of some vast conspiracy to suppress whatever doesn't fit our "systemic bias," that we are all out ot get you. This is where your arguments tend to go off the rails a bit. Accusingus all of bias so deep even we cannot see it is not a statement designed to win you friends and converts. If what you say is true, then our deeply seated bias is simply going to categorize you as a paranoid nutjob (and stting the WP is all for the concealmnent of info is right bonkers, Coop) and dismiss your concerns utterly. The fact that anyone is writing back should strongly indicate that we are giving your words and thoughts weight. We may not agree with them (I certainly don't agree with some of your thoughts), but they are not being dismissed out of hand. Keep up the paranoid rant thingie, though, and the rest of us will unconsciously begin to filter you out, like white noise.

You stated: "One of the purposes of entertainment-related articles in Wikipedia is to provide consumer guidance." It is absolutely NOT a purpose of WP, and perhaps you need to refresh the goals of Wikipedia by referring to WP:FivePillars. If you read a neutral article about a book and decide you want to read it based on that, knock yourself out. If you are seeking reviews of any color or variation of bias, go to Amazon.com. I hear they will let just about anyone write a review. WP is not a Consumer Reports replacement.

I have been strongly in favor of adding a header under the article called Controversy, or Departures from Book, or whatever. So long as the material contained within that header is referenced clearly by a mainstream source, no one can fault you for it. I will defend your right to do it, as we all should. So maybe stop ranting and start writing. Read the article on the 5 Pillars, and Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View. They are relatively easy reads, and will assist you greatly in guiding and defending your edits.Arcayne 13:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, setting aside my nutjobbery for a moment, what utterly confuses me about all this is that reviews, which involve aesthetic judgment and are hence by definition articulating someone's point of view (unless they read "this film was in color and was exactly x minutes long") are OK if and only if they are from a "mainstream" source and not from a "right wing nutjob" source? Disentangle yourself from that snare please and then we'll talk. I have seen scads of WP articles which discuss critical reception as, as it were, a sociological fact. Do we need to now scour thousands of articles on works of art and literature to remove all reference to reviews? Or should we leave them in as long as they are reasonable... according to who exactly? You? Are we getting anywhere near to getting my point yet? Also, I did not claim that the purpose of WP is to evaluate anything but to provide useful information. If that is not the case, why do we not have any information in this article about the number of sprocket holes in a print of the film, or how much it weighs in the can, or what astrological house the moon was in when it was released? And First Things is a right wing nutjob source? I don't read it regularly, but I can get a copy at Barnes and Noble. I've never had to use my secret contacts with David Duke's organization or nuthin. If you look at the masthead http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=10 you'd see that this is one of the leading intellectual journals for conservatives (e.g., Novak, Wiegel). My gentle suggestion that you hold up a mirror, thus, must still stand. But if you'd rather project political stereotypes on me, an atheist and, once upon a time, a Clinton voter, go for it. I'm all done here. 71.34.82.127 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Human Project

What does it actually do in this film?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.52 (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Nothing. There wasn't any such thing in the book, but sh! Don't tell anyone. Differences between the book and the film are a secret. Agent Cooper 13:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. No, it wasn't in the book. Rather than sniping at fact that you would rather argue about your pulled edits, why not simply put that energy into writing a header about the differences between the movie and the book? Enough with the paranoid nonsense, please.Arcayne 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't take it personally. I just won't spend more time on the article when everything I've posted gets deleted. I can see the history panel just as clearly as you can. Agent Cooper 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you don't take it personally, Agent Cooper, or do you now prefer to be called User:71.34.82.127 now? See, the multiple accounts, as well as the blanking of any commentary on your own page tells me that you are not being very honest with the rest of our community here. You delete your own posts on this page and then blame us for deleting them, throwing in a few vague accusations to boot. You say you won't spend any more time on the article. Good. You can leave now. Leave all us "political inversionists" to our vast network conspiracy. I'll CC: the Telepathic Mind Witches in orbit, so you won't have to wear your tinfoil helmet any more. (*sorry to everyone else; my tolerance for fakery has never been all that high.)Arcayne 23:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's a significant misunderstanding here. I first commented here on October 2nd, and had my comment deleted by Erikster; I tried to explain my intentions and Erikster apologized. Between the 17th and the 21st I was getting frustrated by what I saw as a complete failure to communicate between me and Arcayne, and it's true that I was starting to become sarcastic. But to be fair, Arcayne's comments struck me as obtuse, patronizing and condescending, perhaps in a way that he did not intend and did not appreciate. I also continue to think that the interpretation of NPOV in this context was erroneous, and the characterization of First Things way off base. This triggered more sarcasm on my part, which inspired abusive expressions like "rightwing nutjob" and "paranoid nonsense" which didn't make matters much better (I'm not religious, I'm not a Republican and I don't own any tinfoil hats, to quote another expression above used about me). Yes, I did decide to wash my hands of the whole thing, and thought I was within my rights to withdraw my comments and end further participation in the discussion. I logged out and then saw other comments about me that I wanted to respond to and I suppose at that point being quite angry at the way I had been treated, responded without realizing that I was logged out, which automatically posted with IP instead of signature/handle. That was inadvertent. Someone else restored my comments, I suppose interpreting the prior deletion as an attempt to destroy a record of malfeasance on my part, though it was really more in the spirit of a childish, taking my bat and ball and going home sort of thing. I never intended to suggest that someone other than myself was responsible for the deletions today--I was referring to the earlier deletions of my comments on October 2, the earlier deletion of the First Things review, deletion of my insertion of the word "loosely" etc. So the accusation that I was trying to create the appearance of malicious deletions that I myself was responsible for was a misunderstanding. There's absolutely no fakery going on here, just a series of misunderstandings, a difference of opinion about substance, probably some competing political sympathies, and some emotional unpleasantness rooted in Arcayne's patronizing tone, my sarcastic tone, etc. I don't think it's at all fair to suggest that I even ever said that there was some sort of conspiracy of any sort--my claim all along was that the way that NPOV was being interpreted made no sense, and that I believed that unconscious political bias was affecting how people were approaching editing the article. I suppose that this sort of thing happens a lot on Wikipedia, and that one gets inured to it, but I made a decision that it was a better choice for me to avoid the probably inadvertent provocation than to master my response to it. I seriously apologize for any misunderstanding that has arisen from any of this. I have been a productive participant in a number of discussions--this kind of thing hasn't happened to me before--so I don't think it's me, I think it's a legitimate disagreement about interpretation of NPOV and bad emotional chemistry. I think that if I decide to come back in the future, if I've learned anything, it's that it's unwise to get involved in editing on subjects that you really like or really dislike--it's too difficult to be objective. In the articles I've worked on elsewhere (Velvet Goldmine, the Objectivism pages, some Shakespeare stuff) the level of passion wasn't there and so hashing out disagreements was much easier. Anyway, I'm going to take a long hiatus from this, and I hope that won't be misinterpreted either. I think the bottom line here is that I'm oversensitive and Arcayne doesn't hear how patronizing he sounds at times. Maybe something constructive will come out of that. In any event, I acknowledge my own shortcomings here and hope that Arcayne and Erikster will accept my apology. The truth is that I really liked the book and that impeded my ability to discuss the NPOV issue here dispassionately. Fair enough? Agent Cooper 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough for me. And I am not unaware of being patronizing at times, but when I know something, I know it. When I am wrong, I say it. There isn't a lot of room for temporizing for me, and perhaps I need to work on that. I hope your hiatus serves you well. I would like to suggest that it might be helpful to visit and read the articles and discussions on NPOV and RS. They are organic things, and are reinterpreted all the time while maintaining the spirit of the rules. And they are good rules to have, Coop. I hope you can see that someday. WP is not driven by any political agenda or sympathies, aside from that of a patient socialist - every opinion counts, and the people with the greatest stamina for expressing their point of views (again, within the rules) prevail.

I agree that contributing to a topic you don't care for can be tedious, unless you focus on the larger responsibilities presented by Wikipedia:Five_pillars]. Once you are able to keep your eye on those goals, you can edit most things, or at least begin to ask the right questions of the articles you edit.

Again good luck to you. I accept your apology, and I hope your hiatus allows you prespective to rejoin the community as a productive member. :) Arcayne 04:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AgentCooper/71.34.82.127

Maybe its just me (as a part ofthe vast "political inversion" conspiracy), but am I the only person who is noticing that the User formerly posting as AgentCooper is claiming that he/she is done posting on CoM, and then continues to post commentary under other IDs? Just a short time ago, User: Yllosubmarine blanked all of AgentCoopers comments on CoM, which cannot be done unless Yllosubmarine is actually Agent Cooper, and then we have ourselves a shell game going on. Adding to this is the further commentary by User:71.34.82.127 speaking as if it were AgentCooper. Three separate accounts (dissimilar to each other), all three blank any detracting commentary on their talk pages, and all three are disruptive. Can we bring an editor in here? I think we have a problem.Arcayne 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agent Cooper removed his comments from the talk page in a Pontius Pilate deal (washing his hands clean of the matter), and I think Yllosubmarine rightfully restored the comments. Without Cooper's comments, our responses to his comments would not make sense. I'm not sure about the anonymous IP, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have misread the history page, Arcayne, and there is certainly no problem with me. As I said to you in reply on my own talk page, I did not remove Agent Cooper's edits. I restored them because I believed his edit to be the work of vandalism, as I stated in my edit summary: "Large sections wrongly removed -- Undo revision 102253260 by Agent Cooper." Furthermore, it's ridiculus to claim that I am not only "disruptive" but I also "blank any detracting commentary on [my] talk page," when I do no such thing. Did you even look at my talk page history? Please do your homework first before you go around making outlandish claims. María: (habla ~ cosas) 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. All of this fast and furious posting is getting caught up in an Edit Conflict. I meant to post that it was a mistake on my part, seeing Cooper's self-deletion on one screen and when I click to see either 'curr' or 'diff' your restoration had taken hold, and having never imagined that sort of glitch (like picking up the phone to call someone at the very moment they are calling you), I made an error. I did visit your page, and thought that maybe your account was the primary, while Agent Cooper was an agent provacateur account, as well as that of the anonymous IP user. At least pasrtof that is right: agent cooper and the IP address appear to be the same person. I offer an apology here as well as on your own talk page. It was a mistake on my part.

What killed Dylan

precipitated by the death by leukemia of their young son, Dylan

It was leukemia?! I thought Jasper explained while Theo was eavesdropping that Dylan died in a flu pandemic. The Wednesday Island 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what killed Dylan, currently the article gives two different apparently contradictory reasons for his death: it cites leukemia near the beginning of the synopsis and the flu later on. Reconciliation is a virtue.76.18.32.58 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jasper describes Dylan as having "little lungs" and then suggests that's why he died in the 2008 'flu pandemic. I think a lot of the confusion in the article is just because people haven't seen the film all that recently, now the DVD's out these things shouldn't be a problem. Driller thriller 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Okay. When I first came to the article, I had moved all mention of Dylan to where he and his dead was (and should be) properly mentioned. Obviously, someone must have mistakenly put that in afterwards. Disinclination 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Loose Adaptation

I am not sure who is removing the word 'loosely' from the first paragraph of the article, but before you do so again, please explain why you feel it needs to go. The movie is not like the book, and since that is the case, a movie based on the book in title and main plot but not in particulars is considered a loose adaptation.Arcayne 12:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Whether you're going to say that Children of Men is "faithfully" or "loosely" adapted from the original source, that claim should be backed in the article. This should be done by reviews of movie critics who have compared the book to the film, like, say, Cooper's citation. (I'd like to point out that the FA-class V for Vendetta has a section of Comments from political sources that includes the so-called "biased" perspectives. The article also has a "Difference between the film and graphic novel" section.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the term 'loosely' fits now, as per the citation.Arcayne 04:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bardo Thodol

If anyone else is seeing the clues, reply here. —Viriditas | Talk 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious symbolism

I am a little concerned that the entire paragraph seems unsupported by citation. It also seems to be putting Christian religious significance to the movie that I don't see. Granted, all films are seen through the lens of the viewer, but I am not sure that the particular lens of Christianity is necessarily appropriate here in WP. Arcayne 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag it as unreferenced. If there's no improvement after a week or two, smite it. Wikipedia doesn't permit "drawing connections" -- I see too much dab-editing on historically based films like Saving Private Ryan based on what editors "know". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's being edited as we speak. I'd like to congradualate Verditas for their work. Disinclination 05:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if he were an actual movie reviewer from a mainstream news outlet, we'd be able to use his imaginative use off drawing connections to Christianity (again, I think the hypothesis grasps at straws). It's well-written and cogent and unfortunately, unable to be used.Arcayne 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the Themes section, as the edit prior to mine added a political statement. This is crossing the line. If anyone wants to retrieve encyclopedic information from the section I've removed and support it with citation to make it verifiable, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of NPOV

I think I understand now what the reasoning was behind removing Sacramone's review from the context it was in originally, since it was a very strongly worded negative review. If one regarded it as a source of factual information about the differences between the book and the film and what motivated them, it would appear to be a biased source for those kinds of facts. Fair enough. (I think it altogether *accurate*, but that would just be to say that I share his bias--the differences are patent and the motivation from them not hard to discern). What I still don't understand is why it is not to be available as a *review* in the links section, especially since "Spill.com," which didn't exactly strike me as prominent, mainstream, dignified or useful, is retained. First, reviews are by definition value judgments--all reviews--unless they are being used to support factual claims about a film's content about which reasonable people can differ, i.e., the ways in which the film can be interpreted. If we say that the most obvious useful purpose of posting reviews (to inform readers a la Consumer Reports) is inappropriate to the purpose of an encyclopedia, then the only conceivable purpose of reviews is to report the facts about the character of the reception, the fact that various reviewers had a particular response. If that is the purpose of including reviews (and otherwise, it seems to me that ALL reviews would have to be removed for "bias" because they all represent points of view about the film of some kind or other), then it seems to me that the only criterion for exclusion would be lack of *prominence*. We wouldn't want to post links to Joe Nobody's Blog in which he reports about the freshness of the popcorn at his local multiplex while seeing the film, fact though it may be. But by *this* criterion, the inclusion of, say, Spill.com and the exclusion of First Things is still completely puzzling to me. First Things is one of the most prominent and well-respected cultural criticism journals for religious conservatives (both Jewish and Christian, though most of the latter commentators are Catholic intellectuals). It is the go-to place for what neocons think about culture, basically. Given the size of the Catholic community, the prominence of the venue, and (at least in my judgment) the representativeness of the response to that community, (and I'm going to try to tread very carefully here lest I be misunderstood) the exclusion of the review is difficult to make sense of via WP policy and not in terms of bias. Since I will apply the Davidsonian principle of charity and *assume* that there is no bias, I want to ask if there are some possible misunderstandings/disagreements as to fact or policy that generate this. One possible misunderstanding as to policy is that to report the fact of a strongly held normative point of view is to violate NPOV. However, this explcitly contradicts the explicit wording of NPOV. It does not violate NPOV to state that "The KKK throughout its history has been opposed to the interests of African-Americans, characterizing them as [insert racist quote from KKK literature, end with cite to KKK-authored text]." To say that the claim or the cite is inadmissible because the source is racist and hence violates NPOV would make no sense, as far as I can tell. If you had to cite to a "mainstream" source, then you would get the New York Times saying that the KKK was racist, and then someone would jump in claiming *that* was biased. And if you then went searching high and low for some reputable source that was truly indifferent to the question of whether or not the KKK was racist, I doubt you could find any, or that one would be accurate if you did. The result would be that the relationship between the KKK and racism would be undiscussable. That is surely an odd result. And it's not just from a Political Consumer Reports goal-perspective that that would be unfortunate. My over-the-top comments about suppression and concealment were directed this way: the inevitable result of such an interpretation of NPOV will be well-intentioned suppression of important facts, which is contrary to the purpose of WP. That was all I was trying to say, if one peels away the sarcastic *way* that I said it.

The second thought is "well isn't First Things some marginal, obscure, weirdo venue? I mean, just look at what these guys are saying! They, like, support the Iraq War! They're, like, against abortion! Yipes!" This, I must stress emphatically, is a huge *factual* error. There are such things as religious conservatives. The effects of their voting behavior speaks for itself--just look around. Check who sits in the White House. There are such things as Catholics. They have existed throughout the world in stupefying numbers for two thousand years. And FT is one of the most highly respected, high profile venues for this kind of thing (Catholic cultural commentary), no matter what one thinks of it. I mentioned that it is invariably present at venues like Borders, where 2-3 dozen "intellectual" journals are available as a part of the periodical kiosks (i.e., it is shelved near "Harper's" and "Atlantic Monthy"). At Powells, which is a well-known though not national chain bookstore, but a "high-falutin" one (catering to the intelligensia), at many of their outlets they will put periodicals with the books in the same topic category, so that a prestigious science journal will be shelved near the science books, etc. In that setting, I've seen FT shelved as "respectable, of broad interest, about religion, so it goes here in the religion books section." (In ventilating on this to a friend in e-mail recently, who teaches political theory at the University of Michigan, he replied that there must be some sort of ignorance involved because he has often used an anthology of FT articles as a text in classes on normative political theory, to serve as the "this is how the smart religious conservatives think").

So I can see how reasonable, unbiased people can differ about things like "Reception" (I think I've seen quite a few other WP articles that allow a freer discussion of what reviews are like in such a section than the Joe Friday approach we've adopted here--see WP's "Atlas Shrugged" article and tell me if that violates NPOV--some of the Randians might wish it did, but the consensus of the editors of which I was one was that it didn't, as harsh sounding as it is--the critics hated the book, so we said "the critics hated the book") and especially about things like "Themes" (where the danger, methinks, is more an OR issue than an NPOV issue--if I said in a Themes section "the film deletes much of the Christian symbolism that the book contains" well as true as that is, it looks like OR, but that's not an NPOV issue if it's phrased correctly), I still am completely clueless about why the FT review link would be deleted from a list of linked reviews on the basis of an appeal to NPOV. It makes no sense unless you assume, falsely, that NPOV requires never informing the reader about the fact of a prominent someone's value judgment, or unless you assume, falsely, that a prominent Catholic-ish intellectual journal must be marginal because it is Catholic-ish.

In the testy phase of this discussion earlier, I suggested that unconscious bias may be at work here (I never meant to suggest willful bias--I think that a lot of people with secular backgrounds and commitments are kinda clueless about all sorts of things related to religion, based on inexperience, just as inexperience is the father of cluelessness in so many areas of life--think about the kinds of things people think they "just know" about gays fifty years ago--consider Arcayne's comment that seeing Christian symbolism in the film at all is a bit of a stretch--doesn't the protagonist look upon the pregnant innocent who carries humantity's salvation in her womb exclaim "Jesus Christ!" OK, for some people, the first thing those two words bring to mind is a carpenter from Nazareth, and for others the first thing that comes to mind is exclamation itself). I retract *any* suggestion of bias. All I want is an explanation of how people understand the relevant policies here and what factual assumptions they are making in applying them. My point is not that every possible viewpoint must be represented. My point is that the fact of prominent viewpoints must be represented if the fact of any viewpoint is represented at all AS A FACT about how people are thinking and acting, and that NPOV does not require (and indeed explicitly says as much) that the fact that a viewpoint exists need not be suppressed because a viewpoint is involved, if one is reporting but not endorsing the viewpoint. One can report the existence of a bias without being complicit in it. Otherwise there could never be a statement in WP like "Many Catholics oppose abortion because it is offical Church doctrine to do so" because it evinces an anti-abortion bias merely to mention it!

I think it is fair to say that the history of the discussion provides a lot of evidence for the two interpretations canvassed above (that people hereabouts believe that NPOV requires eschewing reporting the fact of any viewpoint about anything because reporting is endorsing, and that FT is a loopy, marginal venue) and that both of these assumptions are, as best as I can tell, quite false.

That's pretty much all I have to say about this. To be honest, I left because I thought that if people were taking things down because they were written by Catholics, that means that there is no hope for WP on much of anything but science and engineering topics. I hope that doesn't offend people. But the more charitable interpretation is that this is a disagreement about what NPOV *means* and what FT *is*. Though I have essentially lost all interest in the film and article, I still have a larger (if dwindling) interest in WP that seems relevant here: I would not want to see the practice spread of suppressing factual reporting about topics like religion and politics merely because such topics are invariably controversy-ridden, since that could mutate into the practice of thinking that NPOV is really the old advice to never talk about sex, religion or politics, lest you offend someone. [BTW, if people feel that this issue is too big for this context and is better placed in a policy-discussion area, fair enough. I though it should go here not just because it arose here, but because my possibly mistaken impression was that it is this article which is the anomaly].

Just to head off a possible problem. If the response is "oh, you're just a newbie; NPOV is quite clear--maybe you should read it?" I'm not and I have. Agent Cooper 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed Spill.com, as it qualifies as linkspam. I thought it was removed, but I'll have to see who re-added it, and follow the trail of bread crumbs. Also, to support your argument, FA-class V for Vendetta has criticism from movie reviewers of a specific political stance: "Don Feder, a conservative columnist from Frontpage Magazine has called V for Vendetta 'the most explicitly anti-Christian movie to date' that 'combines all of the celluloid left’s paranoid fantasies'". It's impossible for a movie reviewer to be totally neutral -- if a reviewer bashes Bush or something in one review, does this disqualify all the rest? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but wouldn't that 1800+ word essay about NPOV be better off in the WP_Village Pump or WP:NPOV discussion area? This artivcle discussion area is already depressingly overlong, and folks with slower internet connections are going to grow beards waiting for it to load. However, since you made the effort to write it, let's clear matters up a bit.The criterion for NPOV have nothing to do with prominence (although some consider the fact that something is utilized as a source for a large number of people as 'prominent'). First Things is not such a publication, as it's very name insists that it is a religious journal whose purpose is to "advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society." Hardly the source for a movie review, as it is not going to be as objective as, say, CNN or LeMonde. It is irrelevent if FT is the "most prominent and well-respected cultural criticism journals for religious conservatives." That it is targeted towards any one segment of a cultural audience removes any possible claim it can make towards an impartiality and neutral point of view. If Christ were to arrive tomorrow in a rocket ship made entirely of Snickers bars, First Things would serve as no more a legitimate source than would the Mars Candy Corporation. CNN reporting statements made by either of the aforementioned organizations would qualify as such, as the latter has no vested interest in any policy or subject save for the reporting of news. This is the absence (or reduction) of bias. Aiming your message at any one specific group or viewpoint is bias. It is truly that simple a definition. This is not rocket science. While Erik (as usual) hit the nail on the head, it bears revisiting. Statements, properly cited, from biased sources can be commented on (as you did with your first KKK example and as Erik suggested in his reply) quite effectively, without surrendering to the pandering interests of those sources. Your comments were not reverted or changed because you were Catholic (after all, I am a Cafeteria Catholic myself). Your take on NPOV was fundamentally flawed. You are moving in the right direction, though.Arcayne 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Set dressing section removed

The set dressing section has been tagged as original research for some time. I've removed it as it is completely unsourced. —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Cities Destroyed

I tried to put them in order as from the commercial in the beginning. Can anyone complete it?

Paris Moscow Washginton Kuala Lampur Tokyo Brussels Hong Kong Berlin Jakatra New York Stockholm Rome Shanghai Caracas Copenhagen Mexico City Amsterdam Atlanta Geneva Marseilles Lisbon Seoul Singapore Naples Boston Antwerp

No Genre listed

Just noticed there was no genre(s) listed for this film.

Aye, I would think it would be classified as science fiction. Xorgthezombie 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)