Talk:Children of Men/Archive 6

message: (CGI technology is good, but I don't think it's that good yet.)
If this is so, it would seem to be yet another breakthrough for the movie. Can't remember a similar performance, can anyone else? Perhaps, if we find a source, this aspect deserves mention in the article? BYT 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I submit that the CGI is somewhat better than we imagine. Remember that the newborn infant was almost entirely a CGI product (see the Production section for details). I don't think Ms. Ashitey was in fact preggers during the film.Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely Ashitey (the actress herself) was in fact pregnant at the time of film's shooting? 

message: I noticed in the cast section that Theo is described as an Everyman. I am not unaware of the connection, but is there a cited source within the article that addresses this. It cannot stay unless sourced Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, you have been aware of the connection since at least 14:00, 1 May 2007, according to the talk archives, and the connection has been directly sourced to the Sacramento Bee since its inclusion, and multiple sources can be found through google and a periodical search. So you are both aware of the connection as established by the talk archive and the source.  See also  WP:EW,WP:DISRUPT, WP:TEND. —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Everyman

message: I personally agree with this edit. For one thing, the material is unsourced, and for my part (as I mentioned elsewhere) I think the film has a great deal more skepticism about Fish motives than it does about those of Muslims. (BTW, unless my memory is going, no Fishes take part in the "Allahu Akbar" march, which would seem to undercut the idea that that march marks the beginning of the Uprising Luke has been attempting to instigate.) BYT 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check the edit history to see who keeps adding it. I have removed it several times. —Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the record ... 

message: Original research as been added to a fully sourced cast section.  There are no sources that support the statement, "The book's plot used Julian, Theo's estranged wife, as the last hope for human fertility" nor is it accurate since the characters were completely changed.  Did you read the book?  Theo's ex-wife in the book is not pregnant.  Julian's entry has been changed to read "has, apparently, gotten the rank and file to stop bombing civilians", which is an editors interpretation of the film.  We want to avoid unsupported statements and stick the sources.   Regarding Luke, it was changed to say he plays "the driver of the car during the first leg of Kee's perilous journey out of London, and, eventually, the man chosen to succeed Julian".  While we could infer and interpret that from the film, we need to stick to sources.  This becomes more serious when sourced statements are removed: "The role of Jasper was a change for Caine as it was the first time he ever portrayed a character who would pass gas or smoke cannabis".  This attributed to the director per the citation.  The edit summary for its removal said, "This sounds like a joke, presumably from Caine. If it's from him, it belongs in the article, but it needs a citation. If it's from someone else, I'm not sure why it's here."  It's sourced directly to to the Moviehole citation.  The quote from the director of the film appears in many different sources.  The entire article is sourced, with references appearing at the end of paragraphs in most cases.  Finally, unsourced content has been added in place of the sourced content: "Caine wears the "granny glasses" that Lennon made iconic in the late 1960s; an obscure alternate take of Lennon's anti-authoritarian song Freeda People" and " plays in Jasper's apartment" without sources...Lennon was shot and killed by a man named Mark; in the film, Jasper is shot and killed by a man named Luke, a name that may well be a both a Gospel reference and a commentary on the dynamics of fanaticism".  In the future, please try to avoid removing cited sections without discussing them on talk first, and please don't add OR.  —Viriditas | Talk 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast section

message: "Credits should be written in the "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format" per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines —Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast section format

message: Is it certain that LUKE is the one who shot Theo?  i just saw the DVD and didn't catch that. <unsigned>
:Yep. So quick, though, that I really don't think you're supposed to notice it the first time around. Slomo the last few seconds of the scene with Luke in the building under siege. BYT 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wondered about that too after seeing the film the 1st time in a theatre. 2nd time, also in a theatre, I watched carefully & Theo is hit by one of Luke's shots as he runs out of the room after Kee. You have to look quick to see Theo's reaction. Tommyt 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched Children of Men for the second time last night and also observed that one of Luke's bullets hit Theo as Theo and Kee dashed away. Modul8r 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke shoots Theo ? 

message: Brandon, I restored the material you removed  for a second time. This cited material was previously explained at 19:57 on 28 May 2007, here: Talk:Children_of_Men#Cast_section. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has since been restored. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I restored it here. I'm not following or understanding your comment. —Viriditas | Talk 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding is not required, Viriditas. I was referrring to BYT's edits that have been restored. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please watch Wikipedia:Etiquette. Understanding is required. If you can't be civil, please don't edit here. BYT's edits were not restored, contrary to SlimVirgin's edit summary. To help you understand the problem, I restored edits that were removed as unsourced when they were sourced. I hope that clears up the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: General understanding is required; your specific understanding is what is not required, Viriditas. Please learn to know the difference. Any by the way, thank you for editing out your uncivil remarks from the removed posts. Please maintain that same level of personal vigilance in your future posts, as it creates a better editing environment, wheher in this article or in other places. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't edited out any "uncivil remarks" because I never made them during this discussion, nor can you show that I have. I have, however, removed your incivil comment "Your understanding is not required, Viriditas." Please try to stick to facts. Specific understanding is required; if an editor makes comments that don't make any sense, then communication is not possible. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for help. Furthermore, please try to discuss the topic under discussion and refrain from commenting on the "understanding" of other editors, as that is a good example of incivility. Thanks for your attention in this matter and for your help trying to improve the quality of the discourse. —Viriditas | Talk 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Perhaps you might want to consider following the letter of your own advice, my young friend. Assuming that people haven't read posts clearly is pretty uncivil. And no, you don't need to respond to this. Follow your own adivce and keep your comments focused on the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be reading things into this discussion that don't exist. I don't see where it I have assumed "that people haven't read posts clearly." Perhaps the words, "I'm not following or understanding your comment" and "To help you understand the problem, I restored edits that were removed as unsourced when they were sourced. I hope that clears up the problem" threw you off, I don't know. But your continued removal of editorial comments and addition of incivil comments while writing in the edit summary, "please do not alter my posts, Viriditas - that in itself is considered disruptive and uncivil" can be considered hypocritical. After all, you've been altering my edits to this article for more than a month. Please feel free to help improve or discuss this article at any time without removing topical comments. If you can't do that, ask a neutral administrator for help. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The diff implies nothing of the kind, and none of my comments could be considered a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Your comments could only be construed as off-topic since they neither address my original statement or the topic of this article. Viriditas | Talk 06:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. The diff points out clearly what I claimed. Now, perhaps you might wish to refocus on the article, hmm? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The diffs do not support any of your claims. —Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of cast section edits

message: Getting back to Phil Sandifer's original suggestion, I would like to work with Brandon and whomever else to develop the bonus feature material, highlighting the Slavoj Zizek material.  This will include the DVD bonus features, "The Possibility of Hope" and "'Children of Men' Comments by Slavoj Zizek", "Under Attack", "Theo & Julian", "Futuristic Design", and "Visual Effects:Creating the Baby".  I think we should start by making use of primary and secondary sources, expanding the DVD section, and then spiraling out to Themes, Production, and adding a new section, "Interpretations" or "Philosophy" if needed. —Viriditas | Talk 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea, V. Hope we can work on this together. BYT 14:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking forward to it, BYT!  I apologize for any misunderstandings in the past.  —Viriditas | Talk 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Below all looks great to me, thanks for the effort here, V. No worries. BYT 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of bonus features section

message: This page needs a spoiler warning before the plot section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.104.24 (talk • contribs) 11:48, June 30, 2007
::Plot summaries don't need spoiler warnings.Jim Dunning | talk 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if they give away the ending?  Hmm.
Yeah. It's called Being a Grown-Up. If you don't want to learn about the plot of the movie, maybe avoid reading the big, bold subsection, called "Plot." - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning