Talk:Children of Men/Archive 2

message: I keep noticing edits popping up comparing the movie to the book. I've suggested it before, without response. I will ask again: in order to avoid comparisons showing up in jarring places, should there be a specific header entitled Departures from the Novel, or some such thing? Please explain why or why not.Arcayne 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparison edits should definitely be placed outside of the Plot section, but I'm wary of implications of original research -- one can go too far to point out even the most minor differences between film and novel.  I would highly suggest depending on using reliable sources, most likely reviewers' observations, for the sake of verifiability.  Film adaptations obviously never perfectly match their sources, so it's sort of taken for granted that there are always differences.  Thus, only the major differences should be emphasized, especially on a plot-driven level.  Not stuff like, the main character's hair color is different in the two versions, or that someone's name is spelled slightly differently. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book Vs. Movie

message: I've sourced this piece of trivia on my own, and while not exactly advancing a position, it is somewhat of a synthesis, as I seem to be the only editor who has made this observation.  Some of it might find its way into other sections. Trivia removed below. —Viriditas | Talk 05:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the trivia point, however, I made the mistake of synthesizing two statements, that as a whole, cannot be verified anywhere outside my own head.  We agree that "Strawberry Cough" appears in the film; That is verified by a link to an article in High Times.  We can also agree and verify that a seed company sells a product by the same name.  But, unless we find a reliable source making this whole claim, it's trivial original research.  —Viriditas | Talk 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that the Strawberry Cough trivia is a "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", perhaps that of a cannabis activist.  Unless we can cite a RS showing a relationship between the fictional drug in the film and the real one in RL, it is bordering on original research. —Viriditas | Talk 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strawberry Cough trivia

message: I have just re-read the article, and it appears tha Viriditas has completely prged a great deal of the data that was in there before, I will work to restore the data. Perhaps it is time for an editor to step in and maybe revisit the definition of edit by concensus.Arcayne 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean.  What information do you see that has been removed? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please re-read my discussion with Viriditas.  It was after the plot had been reduced, and I was asking him to tie sentences together for fuller paragraphs.  He simply addressed the issue that was marked by the  tag. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Erik has nothing to do with your complaint, Arcayne.  I attempted to merge some of the backstory into the lead, and dispensed with the rest.  Some of it might be salvaged and added to the theme section, which can be split if it grows longer.  The plot is already too long.  I also removed a lot of repetitive content. —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing data

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* (see influence in question: Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000)
*
*
*
*
**(same article, different source) 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
:I've tried to do my best to put together a list of non-review sources that can help flesh out the article.  Excuse me if any of the articles are redundant to the ones already cited; I tried to make sure nothing was repeated, but there might be some redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, alright... you called me out.  I'll explain my technique for getting these headlines.  For a while now, I've had a Google Alert set up to capture headlines that had the keywords "children of men" "alfonso cuarón" in it, and I set it to capture news headlines only, not typical Google results.  Since Google News only keeps 30 days' worth of headlines, they go away soon enough, but the Google Alert e-mails the link to me, so I had an archive of CoM-related movie news.  The only difficulty is dealing with a smorgasbord of reviews around the UK release date and the US release date.  I use Google Alerts for other films, too.  If anyone's curious about setting this up, feel free to contact me on my talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Citation for the Reception section, which could be fleshed out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Citation for the Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use 

message: *
:Citation for the Reception section, which could be fleshed out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: *
:Citation for the Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual effects

message: Um, the Dark Rain OL episode is in fact based upon the novel. It was stated thus in the DVD extras from the Outer Limits DVD commentary. They called it "inspired by" which means they took the vasic premise and created something for budget tv.
As well, the reference for the Wastelands link was not original research, but an interview. The original statement made clear the connection between the use in both TS Eliot's poem and the film. The link that you removed was an actual link to the poem, not original work (ie, not an interpretation or transliteration of the poem). I am not sure of the reasoning behind the revertArcayne 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Dark Rain really necessary to mention for the film article?  It seems better suited for the article about the novel. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus is against maintaining a trivia section, and I plan on permanently eliminating it from this article in the next 72 hours. —Viriditas | Talk 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not just two editors determining the consensus.  The WP:AVTRIV guideline clearly reflects that the trivia section should be discouraged, which has been done successfully on higher-class film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loosely 2: The Citations get wacky

message: You should probably move that soundtrack section to its own page and just write a nice prose about each of the albums. Most featured articles (as I assume most editors for this page are striding to bring this article to that status) don't have soundtrack infoboxes, and lists of songs.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move complete. —Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The prose needs to be expanded, it can't be one line. I'm not that familiar with the page and all the information, otherwise I would do it myself.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interim, I added more text from the main article.  I'll work on expanding both, but I removed the tag from the Music section. —Viriditas | Talk 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: I'd like to suggest removing the Cast section, as the information is already redundant in the Plot section.  I've noticed that FA-class articles that are not franchises generally do not have a wikitable for the cast.  It seems unnecessary to present the information again in a listy form.  Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: See WP:NOR. Unless you can provide WP:RS that addresses the weaponry and the film, we can't add it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am not understanding your reasoning, Viri. There was a citation (an interview, I think) where they discussed it, but someone wanted a citation regarding the weapon, so I provided that. Drawing attention to the fact that the weapon in the film resembles a real weapon does not constitute OR. Perhaps you can explain what the issue is here.Arcayne 05:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see any reliable source regarding the film and the weapon.  If there is one, cite it, and the issue will be close to resolved.  What you call "drawing attention" is most definitely OR if a RS doesn't do it first.  I could easily write 75,000 words drawing your attention to fictional images in the film that resemble real images. —Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your polite response and admire your tenacity, but remember, this trivia point was in the article for some time, and even with a cite request tag, no source was ever found.  I hope you find one, but I feel we must be rigorous in weeding the good from the bad, and this unsourced content has already been in the article for too long.  It is incumbent upon the editor, when asked, to source any material they add, and this process has aready occurred.  Please leave the content out of the article until you find a good source.  Thanks.  I also want to say, that I've followed your comments in this regard, and I personally believe you are correct, as you seem to have experience with weapons.  Unfortunately, that isn't good enough. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XM8 original research removed again 

message: I found the article through Google and was able to access it without registration.  (See article.)  I'll try to cross-reference the citation with what Cuaron has said in the interviews.  I will also replace the citation in the article with apparently this accessible one. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find where Cuaron said that it was an uninterrupted shot?  Maybe he was misunderstood, 'cause the VFXWorld article is extremely detailed about these shots, definitely not a disputable source. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuous shot dispute

message: This is in the Production section: "Children of Men is the first major motion picture known to legally use a Creative Commons-licensed sample from Freesound in its production. In the credits, the film attributes user thanvannispen for the use of "male_Thijs_loud_scream.aiff"."  Is this really something notable to include?  It feels kind of tacked on and marketed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, yes, it is notable, as the site claims this is the first major film to use cc-licensed sample with user attribution. —Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Viri here.Arcayne 05:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons sound 

message: I'd like to suggest a couple of images for the article:
* to reflect the hostility of the film's universe
* to indicate the Animals reference visually
:Thoughts?  Any other images that could be used? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are production stills that were released for promotional purposes, so we can use them here as long as it significantly contributes to the content (with fair use rationale written in for the images). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right on then.Arcayne 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify: the Animals reference is to Orwellian totalitarianism more than hostility, and the film's "universe" is essentially that of the wasteland (mythology) which the hero attempts to redeem. —Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having second thoughts on the Animals reference unless we can develop on that particular reference further -- it's only a sentence, not really significant content for inserting a fair use image.  Viri, you were talking about how the shot of Owen and Moore walking through the tunnel was symbolic -- is there any citation of this that appears (or could appear) in the Themes section, and have this tunnel image alongside it?  Then the shot of the opening terrorist attack could set the path of the Plot section with the act of violence. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The terrorist attack is really inconsequential, however it does introduce us to Theo's world.  Its role is to disturb or wake the hero up out of his self-absorbed life and get him back on track. The image of Owen and Moore is extremely important, as it represents the end of Act I and the "crossing of the threshold" of the hero into Act II, where the hero has accepted the call to adventure.  Citations are still pretty hard to find, but I did find a few hero's journey refs that I will be adding to the theme section later today.  Again, I think the Owen and Moore image should stay in the article somewhere.  I admit, the image of Owen leaning forward with his cup of joe while a bomb is exploding behind him would work in order to introduce the setting. —Viriditas | Talk 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Might I ask why the Shantih reference was removed yet again from the plot synopsis? I ask because I I would prefer to discuss this than simply rv the change.Arcayne 17:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to your comment, a descriptive edit summary was provided and a comment was placed on talk in the appropriate section explaining why it was removed. —Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not part of the story, and does not appear in the official script released by Universal.  Furthermore, it is your interpretation of events that you keep trying to add, and an innacurate one regarding the fade to black.  This thematic interpretaton of sound and titles belongs in the theme section. —Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Seeing as this is probably going to go on, I'm going to fetch a couple of independent opinions. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would helpful if reverts to the statements in dispute be left alone until the independents weigh in. It otherwise comes across as attempting to incite an edit war, which we don't think is in the best interest of the article.Arcayne 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could leave the statements in dispute out of it. :)  Could go either way.  Do whatever either of you want -- revert, report each other, call each other trolls... I'm done with this stalemate for the time being. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most telling is the history of this content in the plot section.  Arcayne (and possibly others) originally used it to convey original research regarding the fate of the world at the end. —Viriditas | Talk 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The page history shows that the material was original research used to speculate about the fate of humanity.  When the fleshy substance of that OR interpretation was removed, the skeleton was left behind.  As it stands, you are attempting to argue that the audio in the credits and the title at the end of the credits is still relevant to this faulty conclusion.  Perhaps you don't see how silly this looks.  Neither the audio or the title has any direct bearing on the plot structure, but merely serves as a thematic apertif. Those who choose to think the laughter of children in the credts is relevant to the plot, which has now all but concuded, are welcome to think so, and are perhaps encouraged by the haunting silence of children's voices in the school scene.  Some may even think that we are being given notice that the Human Project was a success, even while the credits roll, while others see the audio as merely a pleasant reminder of what was missing, and still others may interpret it as a studio add-on, perhaps to avoid alienating audience members who have just experienced a trip through hell.  And we can also speculate that the reference to the Waste Land at the end of the film is entirely deliberate, in case anyone missed the clues sprinkled in every scene.  Nevertheless, the plot synopsis doesn't cover non-narrative, thematic homage and sound clips that occur after the film has concluded. You are of course, free to expand the theme section. —Viriditas | Talk 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Shantih

message: I'm thinking about either stand-alone sections or subsections (of Production), since there seems to be a decent amount of information regarding the two topics.  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a perfectly acceptable short term solution, but in the long term I would like to see long production sections summarized in the main article and split into longer new articles with subsections, and categorized as "film production" or some other name. —Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like the branch-off allusion articles from the FA-class Star Wars articles or themes with Blade Runner? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps Pre-Production and Post-Production.Arcayne 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cinematography and visual effects

message: I was asked twice on my talk page to provide my opinion on the discussion over the synopsis section of this article. The more detailed request can be viewed here. If any other points are not mentioned in that request, please post them on my talk page under that section as I am not going to be able to read the entire discussion that has taken place on this page and have not yet seen the film.
:The definition of synopsis: "a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc." In other words, the "Synopsis" may also be called "Plot" or "Plot Overview" however, the title is irrelevant. This section of a film article is provided for a comprehensive overview of the plot of the motion picture. From what I understand, these references to the phrase "Shantih, shantih shantih" are purely for thematic reasons. Therefore, statements on the subject should be confined to the "Themes" section. If they somehow signify sometime of event relevant to plot of the film, than they should be included. However, I do not get the impression that they are in fact relevant to the plot.
::The information present in a "Synopsis" section should be based on the question of comprehensiveness, but also elegance and encyclopedic relevance. I don't believe that the addition of these references to the said phrase and sounds are relevant to the plot enough (if at all) and therefore should not be included in the section. I should also point out that these additions according the link provided, are written a rather overly dramatic (and therefore unencyclopedic) tone. The Filmaker 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside Opinion Requested: Children of Men

message: This is an interesting contradiction that might be worth adding into the article either now or down the run: Children of Men: Who Really Wrote the Script? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, along with the studio controversy over distribution, which should be added to the lead. In other news, the DVD release appears to have a lot about themes as well. Partial transcripts are online. —Viriditas | Talk 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the studio controversy over distribution? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One source calls the fim's marketing strategy in the U.S. a failure and describes the film as a victim of the studio, comparing it to the release of The 12 Monkeys.  More information about the release should go in the lead.  Was it a normal dist; was the limited U.S. release made to meet Academy deadlines?  Any signs of viral marketing online or elsewhere? I suspect posters appeared in American cities during the UK release.  What about other countries? I also read that the studio was upset with the gloomy conclusion. Who added the children's laughter to the end? —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there more than one one review decrying the marketing strategy? I have noticed that while there aren't much in the way of bad reviews listed in reception; is that a bias issue? Lastly, is there a citable concern that the music at the end of the story is a recent addition?Arcayne 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are a few: "...seems to have been some fear on the part of Universal to promote a film with such a dark political message. Despite the absence of marketing, Children of Men seems to be doing fairly well through word of mouth and some critical acclaim."   "Generally speaking, distributors don’t release their "A" titles in January. This first month of the year has always been a mix of quality Oscar caliber films expanding, tough to categorize films that studios don’t quite know what to do with and just plain awful pics. Today (1/5), there’s one fantastic film going wide (Children of Men from Universal on 1,200 screens)..."   The question regarding the addition of the sound of children laughing at the end was intended to spark the discovery of a source through research.  —Viriditas | Talk 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing credits dispute 

message: The fair use rationale of the image from the press kit was questionable. Explicit permission to reproduce freely may be required from the copyright owners in this case. i kan reed 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?  It was a production still distributed for promotional purposes.  The image can be found at Yahoo! and ComingSoon.net. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed an image 

message: This article has passed it's GA.  My suggestion is to add references where there aren't any.  Otherwise, get a peer review for it.  DoomsDay349 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the recognition.  We hope to improve this article further. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA