Talk:The Fountain/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about The Fountain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Coverage

Wildman, David (November 22, 2006). "Vivid anarchy". Worcester Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (Useful excerpts from interview with Aronofsky follow)

How much of what happens is supposed to be real and how much is allegorical?
I've always described the film as a psychedelic fairytale. The "psychedelic" is meant to make it very clear that this is an adult fairytale. Hugh is Man, Rachel [Weisz] is Woman. They have Romance with a capital "R" - a sweeping love across the centuries, which is somewhat real, but also magical and romantic. Most movies have that scene that connects the lovers somehow; they do something silly together which shows you something into their character. I wasn't interested in that, even though everyone wanted me to do it. For me, they were very much symbols. The humanity of the characters came in because of the actors.
The opening certainly takes you completely by surprise.
Most of the time, audiences go in and they meet with their hero in the first couple of minutes, and then it's about following that person as they overcome other obstacles. This film, the first 15, 20 minutes you don't know what the fuck is going on. If you understand the sci-fi genre, it's OK to be disoriented for a bit until it starts to click together. It's actually a very old tradition of sci-fi. Most sci-fi novels, you read the first 80 pages, you don't know what's going on; then suddenly it all clicks together, and a universe opens up in front of you. So that's what we were aiming for.
Did this story come to you outright, or was it pieced together from different ideas?
Both. I think ultimately, I've always described myself when I write as a "tapestry maker." In a sense, I take fabric from different places, meaning cool ideas, things I'm interested in. I was always interested in Mayan history. I was always interested in conquistadores and Spain. I was listening to David Bowie's "Space Oddity." My friend who I was working with just got his PhD in neuroscience. So all these ideas were floating around out there, and I just started weaving them together, and eventually made a rug, which became the movie.

Just tired of having the record in my inbox. Erik (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Niemiec, Ryan M.; Wedding, Danny (2008). "Wisdom II: Open Mindedness, Love of Learning and Perspective". Positive Psychology At The Movies: Using Films to Build Virtues and Character Strengths. Hogrefe Publishing. p. 49. ISBN 0889373523. The development of perspective is also depicted in The Fountain (2006), an intriguing, visually stunning, Darren Aronofsky film about life and death that melds past, present, and future (the 16th, 21st, and 26th centuries). Hugh Jackman plays a surgeon and researcher looking for a cure for his wife's terminal illness. Just as he nears a cure, she dies. Refusing to believe in her death, he claims death is a disease and that he will find the cure. His denial and work addiction are obstacles to the development of the strength of perspective, but he is able to confront those obstacles as he develops acceptances and wisdom, represented by themes drawn from both Buddhism (meditation, rebirth, reincarnation) and Christianity (eternal life, faith, and love). —Erik (talk | contribs) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Kollision (talk · contribs) removed the article's "See also" section that lists similar works to The Fountain and references Allmovie. He cited a 2009 discussion about such a section at Fight Club. I argue that consensus can change, and all film articles should not be bound by discussion at a single film article. A "See also" section is intended to link to related but tangential topics. Allmovie is acceptable as a reliable source and lists similar works to The Fountain. For example, Solaris also has a hallucinatory love, and Altered States also has a Deleuzian construct. Such internal links expose readers to similar films in a non-promotional manner, and the removal of the section decreases the value of the article in this regard. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Weak remove If I was to give a !vote on this matter, it would be in favor of removal. (In fact, I was considering removing it myself before Kollision did.) You are completely correct about consensus--it is mutable and consensus reached in once instance is not universal. You are also correct that see also sections can be valuable for exploring similar topics that are not directly related and will not be navigable through templates or succession boxes. That having been said, my beef with this one is that it is based on one source's opinion of what constitutes similar films. If several reviewers had mentioned explicit similarities with (e.g.) Solaris then I would be entirely in favor of linking it in a see-also section (as well as noting this in the critical reception or somewhere else appropriate.) The problem for me is why a list should be constructed based on Allmovie. For that matter, why only list movies? Surely, there are other non-linear narratives from other media that are of interest to readers about this topic... If a better see also section can be constructed which relies on either more explicit connections with other media (e.g. The Fountain (comics) and The Fountain (soundtrack)) or which is based around at least a few sources who have noted commonalities, then I would be in favor of it. Otherwise, a see also section is of limited value, as it really just represents the views of one source (or--and I reckon this happens a lot--a huge variety of sources that makes an unwieldy list of faint connections.) Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The "See also" section is supposed to list internal links that are not in the article body but have a relationship with the topic. The graphic novel and the soundtrack are described and linked in the body, so they would not be listed in the section. If some film critics compared The Fountain to Solaris, and Google News Search provides some evidence of this, it could be included in the article body if there is significant comparing taking place. That's why the emphasis is on tangential topics; most topics will be discussed in context and find their way into the body. Referencing Allmovie for similar works allows for a straightforward list. When you ask for multiple sources to discuss the connection, then that expectation naturally means that the topic is not going to be tangential.

For example, The Fountain is compared to Solaris, but very lightly so, apparently not enough to write engaging prose about it. Allmovie is considered a reliable source. It is primarily a database that is especially not user-edited like IMDb would be, and the similar works is not based on one person's opinion. There are not going to be films exactly like The Fountain, but there are those of similar subject matter and/or structure. There is a dearth of references that list such similar works, but I make use of them when I can, like at Apt Pupil (film). Wikipedia is based on links, so this kind of navigation can lead readers to additional topics. Links in the article body are surely of higher value with a lot of context surrounding it, which is why a "See also" section comes after the body. Director templates are a type of "see also" section where the connection is based on the person (which does not mean a lot sometimes). Other kinds of connections can be simplified, like Apt Pupil linking to all other Holocaust-related films, but with Allmovie, there's an opportunity to identify a set of specific titles that readers can explore at their own discretion. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Erik. I have done a similar thing with Saw's "see also" section a few weeks ago as I find it useful for the reader. Why should someone have to google "What kind of movies are related to [film]" when they can could possibly find it in the Wikipedia article and then click the other films and learn about them? We should stick with what sources, like Allmovie, says and not include original research. @Justin, I think the purpose of a See also section is not to include links that are already being used in the article, but to introduce "new" and useful pages. Shouldn't The Fountain (comics) and The Fountain (soundtrack) be discussed in this article somewhere? —Mike Allen 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm not sure that I'm on the same page, but you've made compelling arguments. Let me put it this way: if someone else adds this content, I won't remove it, but I might edit to explain why or how these articles are related or to trim it if this list gets excessive. Simply put, I'm not as experienced in editing film articles, so I'll bow to the authority of two users who are and if anyone else wants to get involved in this matter, then I'll happily let them decide how it should be structured. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as part of Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia to suggest similar films to readers. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are not IMDb and we are not Allmovie and all that is being done here is replicating Allmovie's list of similar works. Why can't we just link to Allmovie in the External links? - Kollision (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor article that is full of redundancy

I really liked this film and wanted to find out more about its themes. But after spending 5 minutes reading this article, I am sadly left with a huge feeling of disappointment because it's just narrative. There is just under 10% of this article devoted to the critical analysis of the film's structure, meaning and symbolism. The rest of the page is devoted to narrative on the production e.g. the fact that Brad was not in it, etc. Material like this should be in an encyclopedia but that does not make it encyclopedic because the information does reflect critical commentary of the facts. It's just facts written as a story through words that have been taken from other published sources.

This film has some major philosophic talking points regarding the nature of "Life, Death and Everything" but none of these themes are addressed at all in this article, save for a small section at the beginning. Something is seriously wrong when there is plain narrative about how a particular scene was shot but not what meaning/context that scene had? But this article demonstrates how the Wikipedia model fails despite the best efforts of its collaborators. Due to the restrictive nature of all the rules and regulations in writing an article, the use of sources, no original ideas, no inclusions of what has not already been published/said/written about, all you will ever read on articles such as this if the rules are applied rigidly (and they have looking at the edit logs) plain and simple narrative. Encyclopedic articles must include critical analysis.

From reading this article, I have not learned anything about what the film's aims were, how it's story arcs critically addressed certain themes or what conclusions could be drawn from the film's imagery across time and space. Instead what I do know is, is how much it cost, who might have starred in it if the budget was bigger, where it was filmed and when? etc. A test for narrative, is whether it could have been surmised in a simple table, and in this case 90% of the article could have been done in this fashion. I am sorry to say this, as the article obviously ticks most of Wikipedia's requirement boxes for a good article but it fails miserably in the requirement of being a serious critique of a very intelligent film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.87.77 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please place the blame on publications that failed to analyze The Fountain. This Wikipedia article publishes coverage from reliable sources, most of which were keen on production detail. There is very little critical analysis available in publications, and the Wikipedia article cannot provide analysis of the film that has not already been published. If you know of any references that could be used in this article, I invite you to provide them. Otherwise, it sounds like you are looking for "original ideas", and Wikipedia is not the place for them; it has a policy of no original research. There are film articles like American Beauty that have critical analysis because there were publications that explored the film's themes. The Fountain, on the other hand, has not received that kind of attention. Perhaps in time it will if Aronofsky's star continues to rise. In the meantime, this Wikipedia article is as comprehensive as realistically possible for this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup i was also really disgusted with this nonsence that is written in here, about some kind of space traveler on his bubble space ship. Someone totally failed with interpretation of this film. First part is Izy book, second part is our reality, and last is shown in mystical way! They all have same message, Death is an Road to Awe. In death is life. Zazae (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Terrible lack of understanding the plot

-SPOILER ALERT- This post contains details about the plot.

The article sets readers attention in wrong directions. The movie is not easy to understand but it is not complex. At least it is not chaotic set of stories. I've watched The Fountain several times and I like it because of simplicity but with additional greater, hidden meanings. It covers the questions of human nature and the sense of life from different perispectives but with one core story. The plot is about the man who lost his wife because of brain cancer. He is biologist, researcher who fighted with the disease and he just didn't make it in time. However, accidentialy he researched the way to live forever, through the symbiosis with the Tree of Life. This turns the story to the actual time set in the far future, when same man travels through space to find answers to his failure. He meditates and fights with the past through visions (the core story is told by that as retrospective), he evolved, he's searching for the meaning, but yet he didn't reconciled with death of his wife. The movie tells us how he does this and finally makes it. The scenes set in 15th century are the basiucaly same story but set in his wife's book (which she intentionally wrote for him as a guide). They are also the answer to the man's questions and on the side, raising other interesting thoughts. The character of inquisitor is the parallel to the cancer and the conquistador is ordered to fight it. But notice how the queen of Spain (actually the wife) refuses to go with straight fight against the threat and finds the other way, leading to the ancient, magical Tree of Life. The book ends with sentence that "conquistador finds death". This is very answer to the man's questions but he's not aware of this as he is trying to understand it as he was told to end the book his way.

Finally, through the analysis of his past actions (and we can feel that he did that hundreds of times when traveling alone in space - by his reactions), he finds that his fight was worthless, just as the book's conquistador fight. The immortality he was gloryfing was the barrier to the joy and the advancement granted by death. He finally accepts that he would meet again with his wife after death and it itself is the opening to the new life as part of the cycle. He finishes the book showing how wortless was conquistador's fight, that he was basically led to die. Obviously the queen was aware that she will die too, giving him the ring to put on >there<, to be together afterlife. After that the man sacrifices himself to the dying star, which even earlier was said that is not dying but evolving into new form.

Summing all up, the plot covers the basic problem of reconciliation with death and actions one should perform instead fighting it. That would be being closer to the dying person, being together. "Together we will live forever".

PS. Even the small detail turns to that, when the Izzy is falling down and Tom is holding her in last time, as she tells him later that "she felt support there being reconciled with the fact". That is the lesson the movie tries to imply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabanowster (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your plot summary that hits the point. I really like this movie and I agree that many people seem to misinterpret the plot. I found some summaries that describe the travel of Tommy as a space travel (of his reincarnation) in a starship in the year 2500 (???), although it seems obvious to me that this depiction is metaphoric for his way to acceptance of the death of Izzy. It was good to read a summary written by someone who, in my opinion, fully understood the plot. Greetings! IustusPeccator (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kabanowster: - (asking because I'm just seeing your comments here, not because I'm attached to any particular version of the article) - Where are you taking this version from, which you state in such absolute terms? Was there an Aronofsky interview or clarity in a novelized version of the film? I wouldn't say you're wrong, just that it sure sounds like one of several certainly unofficial interpretations. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927220615/http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20061120darreninterview to http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20061120darreninterview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709172723/http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10478.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10478.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118033252/http://www.premiere.com/Review/Movies/The-Fountain to http://www.premiere.com/Review/Movies/The-Fountain

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Plot overlength

The plot is about 600-800 words overlong. Some of this is due to discussion about the plot (including references) being in the plot, which is wrong. The rest is just self-indulgence. I'm going to do what I can to fix this.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Official Website problem

The "Official website" template in the External Links section takes me to WikiData's second-ranked "flashsite" URL, which doesn't work, instead of the first-ranked one in the "official website" section. Why? How can this be fixed?

User5910 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)