Talk:The Fountain/Archive 1

message: What is the preferred cast template to use in film articles?  Is there a template promoted by WikiProject Films to use?  I noticed that the template for this article's cast was changed to another one I've seen on other film articles, but it's been reverted. Erik 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast template?

message: "However, more mature responses from the screening have been overwhelmingly positive, comparing the film to 2001: A Space Odyssey"
This seems a) POV ("more mature") and b) the references (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24379 and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/usercomments-5) in support aren't that great. I've remove these for the moment. Hope that's ok. shellac 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Your change is fine.  I think it's best to wait for the actual release before going into detail about its reception.  I'm going to restore the reference for the audience booing, though. --Erik 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: This section seems unnecessary, as it was mentioned in the section before it, and i haven't seen the mpaa rating included in other articles on wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.162.186 (talk • contribs) 18:56, November 8, 2006
:Thanks for the heads-up.  I'll get rid of the sections and make the MPAA rating fit.  Some film articles do have them, but it's generally not added because the rating is U.S.-based.  There are some articles about films that contain rating tables for various countries, though. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPAA Rating 

message: There is a book by director Darren Aronofsky titled "The Fountain" about the film's production.  It's supposed to be "an extension of Aronofsky's cinematic vision, and will contain production stills of the film's stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, original script, original art, and observations from creators Ari Handel and Darren Aronofsky".  The book's supposed to be published this month (November), so if anyone picks up the book, feel free to include any new information in the article.  I recommend using the Cite book template to cite the added information.  Also, the book's ISBN is 978-0-7893-1495-6 (0-7893-1495-9), according to the first link.  Not sure which set of numbers is relevant. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book on The Fountain 

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
::Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for possible use 

message: I Believe that the entire 16th century conquistador story thread was simply the plot of the Book (The Fountain) that Izzi was writing.  Before seeing the movie, I assumed that the conquistador found the fountain (tree) of youth and was now a biochemist fitting in with modern society.  But this cannot be, as neither Tom nor Izzy have any recollection of their former lives as conquistadors or queens. Also, what is mentioned of the plot of Izzy's book is exactly the same as the 16th century sequences of the movie.  On the other hand, Tom reacts in a somewhat startled way after reading Izzy's book.  He also sees Queen Isabella in his visions in the biosphere.  That shiny gold stuff was cool.
::considering Thomas was consumed by flowers growing out of his body in the end, i think it's safe to say he didn't go on to become a major bio-chemist/oncologist.Stickmangrit 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be true only if the ring didn't tie the Conquistador story to the present day story and if rebirth wasn't an extremely central concept in the film. At most, you can only say that relationship is ambiguous, and this should be reflected in the article. // Montag 19:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Izzy's Book 

message: I linked the phrase Mayan mysticism to the Maya mythology article, but I didn't see the specific myths described in the movie recounted in the article -- are those actual Mayan myths, or something made up for the film? //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie presents Mayan mysticism/mythology in a pretty straightforward manner, especially about how the First Father sacrificed himself to create his world and how his leftover head was hung to be Xibalba, the underworld.  The Themes and influences section have things that would not necessarily be explained in the movie, such as Jackman's viewing of the brain surgery to get into the mindset of his character.  I'll see what I can add, though... 'cause it would be original research to connect the dots.  Would be better to expand information on mysticism from interviews and such... take a look at the "Citations for possible use" above, maybe there's something there. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I meant to say that this is not presented in the Maya mythology article.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I understand what you mean.  It's either that the filmmakers put a spin on the Mayan aspects, or that the article just isn't complete with all the information about Maya mythology.  I think it's more likely to be the latter, since the sources seem to reflect that research was done to film The Fountain, including talking to tour guides. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 08:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayan mysticism 

message: I think the lead paragraph could use an expansion in citation about how The Fountain can be interpreted differently.  The "Rubik's Cube" quote almost seems like a throw-away quote without additional support for welcoming various interpretations.  (Aronofsky has encouraged interpretations and has even enjoyed hearing them in interviews.)  Furthermore, the second paragraph is too fragmented in purpose and needs to be re-organized to flow better.  In addition, references need to go after punctuation.  Any further concerns or messages responding to these concerns are welcome here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found an interesting fourth interpretation to the film in various (obscure) online resources -- namely, that the "immortality" achieved by the sap-drinking Creo character comes in the form of a strange fourth-dimensional existence where he lives in all possibilities and time periods simultaneously.  Am trying to find more rigid source material (preferably a paper-publication review);  in the meantime, if anyone finds similar (reliable) corroboration, pls point me in the right direction.  Sskoog 05:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up Interpretations 

message: Good job folks.  I think this badboy is ready for primetime. As the weeks go on, I am sure it will require expansion and updating, but it is good as it is and I think stable enough to be a GA.  Few suggestions:
*In the sentence beginning "$18 million had been spent," the money figure needs to be spelled out since it begins a sentence.
*"Promotion" should logically go begore "Reception."
Other than that, great job.  Congratulations to all involved.--Esprit15d  (talk ¤ contribs) 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Promotion 

message: Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review.
--Ling.Nut 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion can specifically be seen at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review#The Fountain.  Part of the issue is what genre The Fountain meets.  As seen above in #SciFi???, a couple of editors questioned that the film was straightforward science fiction, and as I agreed with their arguments, I boldly removed it.  The initial sentence in the lead paragraph, "that explores the themes of life, love, death, rebirth and the ageless quest for immortality", was based from the film's official synopsis and was not unsourced.  Per WP:LEAD, this sentence helps summarize the Themes section, which is in itself strongly cited with both first-party information via interviews and third-party interpretations via reviewers (as original research interpreting the film would not be permitted here).  In addition, another argument made against The Fountain as a GA-class article is that the Themes section begins with, "The Fountain explores multiple, overlapping themes, often involving religion, mythology, technology, and psychology, leaving wide room for various interpretations," which the dissenting editor feels that there is lack of a reliable source.  However, the Themes section itself very much reflects this summary statement, with religion, mythology, technology, and psychology all strongly cited.  There is no fancruft here.  The "wide room for various interpretations" is supported by the Aronofsky quote at the end where he says the film is "very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end".  The editor has said that there is a "large share of unsourced info, as most of these sources have little of encyclopedic and more of speculative in them", which makes no sense, because the citations are online and quickly verifiable and help shape the imagery of the film.  How is this speculative? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article's [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status being reviewed for possible delisting 

message: Since the Influences section is not very long, I was wondering what other editors thought about disseminating the Influences content into respective sections of the Production section.  Some influences are already mentioned in the Production section, such as "To design a rainforest set, the films Aguirre, the Wrath of God and The Holy Mountain were screened for the crew for inspiration."  This seems appropriate, as the influences helped shape production.  The conquistador influences could be worked into the paragraph about the Maya warriors, and the astronaut period influences could be tied into the talk about the biospheric ship.  The Sefirot influence could also be added to the tree paragraph, especially since the "resizing" factor was part of production.  If anyone has an issue with this merge, just comment here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The change has been implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production and Influences 

message: *
:—Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree info 

message: *
:Aronofsky mentioned Once Upon a Time in America as an influence on The Fountain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Once Upon a Time in America'' 

message: *
:Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual effects 

message: *
:Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview with Clint Mansell 

message: Are we listing every award this film was nominated for? If so, it would be kind to add that it ultimately lost these awards, else it could look like a big list of accolades that this film did not actually win JayKeaton 06:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fountain didn't receive nominations for that many awards, anyway.  If you want to mention that they did not even win the awards for which they were nominated, that's fine.  There's really only two awards that are mentioned for the film itself -- Satellite Award and Saturn Award.  Is that really a "big list"? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated for

message: I would like to eventually nominate this article for FA status in the coming month, but I'm concerned that the structure of the Plot section will not be up to par.  I'd like to suggest the possibility of creating three subsections that each address the separate stories that go on in the film.  This would make the events for each story arc linear and solve the structural issue.  However, my concern is how to approach the conclusion of the film, as it ventures from simple cinematic transitions to true interaction -- i.e., the meditating Tom appearing in front of the priest instead of the conquistador.  I think this could be an appropriate solution if we could somehow address the overlapping events at the end of the film.  Perhaps the three subsections can be concluded at a certain point, and the fourth subsection would tie everything together?  Further justification for taking this approach would be to avoid a blow-by-blow summary process that would be confusing for a film like this.  It can be further emphasized in the first sentence of the Plot section that the three story arcs overlap with each other.  Wikipedia isn't a substitute for watching the film, so while the transitions are thematically relevant, they are too numerous to be detailed in this plot summary.  It's already noted in Themes the style that Aronofsky used, but it seems unnecessary and difficult to try to show this in the summary.  Batman Begins is a light example -- it was not linear, as Nolan likes to jump around in the timeframe, but we made it linear to resolve the issue of having to address what was happening on the screen at the moment.
Before the nomination, I'd also like to rewrite the last paragraph of Themes for more content; this is a highly interpretative film, so I think that Themes should be a major part of this article.  Also, the Reception section needs to be expanded, as there are really only two reviews on there -- one positive, one negative.  If anyone can help out in expanding this section, that would be appreciated.  Also, the DVD will be coming out soon with potentially advantageous content, so I'd like to have the nomination after it can be explored what we can use from the DVD's features. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest providing a picture after this potential Plot section revision.  The picture should include both of the main characters, especially from the contemporary period, to solidly illustrate the romance element of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Plot section 

message: I read that Jackman took 14 months to achieve the lotus position. That's outrageous and can't be right. More than half the kids from the country where my family originated from could do it (I don't want just say I could do it and act all "look at me") on first or second try (as in a second try seconds after the first try). This isn't some hocus-pocus-mumblejumble-mystical takes-you-a-LONG-time stuff to do. I'm sure you could do it right now if you're the right body type where physics would allow you to put your feet up on your thigh while you sit cross-legged (wrong body type being...leg too long? too much flesh on your feet.. - not trying to discriminate? or your bone/muscle structure is built too tight/inflexible?)
:Most kids can do it fine.  Adults lose flexibility.  With a little work an adult can sit in the full lotus with the feet in the right location for a longer period of time.  Usually when you start one of your knees is positioned awkardly in mid-air.  It takes a while to develop the flexiblity where that knee will descend to the appropriate position.24.21.168.8 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lotus position? 

message: I've just watched this film and I'm curious if there is a citation for the phrase in the head of this article that future-Tom is in the 26th century specifically? I saw no reference for exact dates for that time-period anywhere in the movie. -- Forrest 10:32 PM Pacific, June 4th 2007
::You'll find the time period mentioned in several reviews, but there is no mention of it in the film proper. The information comes from the film's marketing and previews. In one preview we see the text "1500 AD" appear before the conquistador scenes, then we see 2000 AD appear before the modern scenes, and then 2500 AD before the futuristic scenes.--Daniel 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's based on the marketing, which is reiterated in the reviews.  The timeline may not necessarily be true (since the film is up for some serious interpretation).  Anyone think that the century mentions should be removed, maybe?  I wouldn't contest it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we reword it to something like "...appears to be a futuristic setting in an unstated year, although marketing materials for the film labeled it as 2500 AD"--Daniel 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote it not to mention the centuries and was instead more vague.  The film does not mention if the different narratives were part of an actual timeline, so it's best to be open-ended. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  26th century? 

message: Does anybody know why in the starship, Tom is pictured bald? This should be explained —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien joe (talk • contribs) 18:36, July 9, 2007
We see him meditating, barefoot, with a light dress, etc. i think being bald goes with the theme. i don't think it needs explanation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.37.136 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom in the starship 

message: *The Fountain by Talha Burki. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic interpretation 

message: 3 things that the main article does not deal with:
1) One aspect not noted in the discussions of the film is that they neglect to refer to any themes that should be obvious and cogent to today's debates about science and religion. Many biologists cling to a strictly biochemical explanation of life and darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Religion is considered just a human construct to deal with the fear of death. When Tomas is about to kill Silencio, he says the Inquisitor must be "cut out" - a phrase which refers to surgery and excising a tumor - something related to the medical treatment of tumors. Silencio himself while a negative and gloomy figure, does not seem to be motivated by the usual forms of greed for gratification of senual pleasure, but is devoted to mortification of his own flesh and is ideologically motivated to steal Spain state by state, in order to bring the country back to spirituality and adherence to the faith in an afterlife. Tomas later as scientist, is taking aim at "death as a disease" rather than accepting death as inevitable and natural. He cannot know what comes after death, while Inquisitor Silencio as a symbol and representative of religious faith, is silent. I also note that in the imdb.com information there is a reference to "Y si, Creo." - phonetically related to Izzi, as "And yes, I believe."
2) The name of the first monkey subject, Donovan, may relate somehow to the film, "Donovan's Brain" where a scientist with the help of his wife (played by an actress who would later be Nancy Regan, wife of the conservative president) and a friend, try to keep the brain of a dead miser alive after having experimented on Monkey brains.
3) We see 3 scenes where Tomas is praying before a reliquary (actually the item may be a monstrance that is used to display a Eucharist as used in communions, to the faithful). The scene in the hospital elevator actually mirrors the second reliquary - a kind of cross with rays. Also, Tom eats of the tree in the space ship, as if it were a kind of communion. While we can clearly identify hair (presumably of Isabela) displayed the first and third time, what is the item in the case at the second time (in Spain)?
---- CB - July 28, 2007 8:10 AM CST
# If you can find any reliable sources that investigates the film's themes in relation to science and religion, they are welcome.  The film is still fairly new, and it usually takes years for a film to be fully criticized, from what I've seen.
# I have not come across any mention of the monkey's name and the film "Donovan's Brain".  If there is a reliable source making the connection, it would be welcome.
# I don't know how to answer this one; it's a question that borders on general discussion.  I haven't come across any reliable sources that study the film's themes and symbolism. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 things:  Science-religion debate, Donovan's brain, Second item in monstrance/reliquary & theme 

message: I appreciate comments in response to my original discussion. As to my #1, where I discuss the Science vs. Religion debate as elements in the film, all I can say is that I am amazed with the current arguments that arise over creationism periodically appearing in the press, that this theme is avoided in discussions, in favor of interpretations of whether Thomas is on drugs or not. 
While I am not a professional film critic, it is fairly easy to point to obvious and explicit elements of this theme, in actions and dialog, which can be clearly ascertained by those who see the film. While there is nothing on this debate quoted anywhere I have seen, by Darren Arnofsky, I think there is plenty of circumstancial evidence: name, "Silencio," the self flagelation of the Inquisitor ("mortification of the flesh" where the soul is imprisoned), and statements made by the Inquisitor about the belief of the queen in immortality being "heresy" and other internal actions and statements by Thomas ('He must be cut out'& "Death is a disease, like any other"), including his willingness to kill Silencio. All these can be fairly interpreted as conflict, certainly without an explicit citation from some film critic or academic, let alone waiting 20 years for someone else to agree.
----CB - 7/29/2007 13.10 CST
:Your observations sound interesting, but unfortunately they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.  Including your own analysis is considered original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies.  I have been trying my best to track down academic studies of the film (one is listed a couple of sections above).  Do you happen to know the whereabout of any academic studies of the film?  It can be referenced for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Science and Religion in the Film, THE FOUNTAIN 

message: *Darren Aronofsky:
*Hugh Jackman:
Quotes on the film's themes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thematic quotes 

message: *Tomas, Tommy, Tom: Past, present and future?
*The Fountain
Ebert stuff. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebert links

message: *Wellness Profile: Director Darren Aronofsky
*Darren Aronofsky and Rachel Weisz Talk About "The Fountain"
*Darren Aronofsky Talks About "The Fountain"
*"The Fountain" - Interview with Darren Aronofsky
*Darren Aronofsky
*'It's the Sanctity of Life'
*Darren Aronofsky Blames Warner Bros For Fountain DVD
*Aronofsky's Fountain of Love
*Director Darren Aronofsky: A 'Fountain' Quest Fulfilled
* The Fountain of youth…
*A Free-Falling Fountain
*Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Darren Aronofsky
*Searching for the Fountain of Youth
*Interview: Darren Aronofsky for "The Fountain"
* The long, strange trip of 'The Fountain'
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: The articles mentions several times that the filmmakers desired to avoid using CGI as much as possible, but it doesn't mention why.  I would see the aim in making a movie totally without CGI, but what exactly does only using some CGI accomplish, besides a lower budget?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I gather, a lower budget was critical for the production of this film.  Perhaps this point can be elaborated in the article.  According to Wired, "The studio bean counters, however, remained skeptical that the director could deliver a supernova without supersizing the bottom line. It wasn't the first time that Aronofsky had been challenged to turn practical limitations into subversive opportunities. 'The whole approach of my team is to take old-school techniques and street technology and figure out how to do something fresh and original with them,' he says. To reinvent space organically, Dawson and Schrecker hunted down old cloud-tank technicians and even hired artists to paint the nebula scenes by hand. But nothing looked good enough."  Obviously they found a solution, but I think a minimal budget was key to its production.  Judging how much it grossed (or didn't gross), the caution seemed warranted in hindsight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of CGI

message: Perhaps it would be nice to somewhere include mention that the location of Xibalba essentially coincides with the Orion Nebula, as an astronomer I've always found this an interesting point in the film that, from what I gather, hasn't been addressed in detail in the article. I'm not much for editing wikipedia articles, so I hope someone with more experience could address this matter. Cheers, 24.255.14.88 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twitch has Darren Aronofsky saying, "All the cosmology, all the stuff about Xibalba, all the stuff about the star in the sky—which is the Orion nebula, where they thought Xibalba was—and their sense of the holy dread and the sacrifice of life creating creation, seems to be stuff that you can interpret out of their writings and their artwork."  I'll see how I can include this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I must say, I appreciate the prompt response. I've always found it a very interesting point of the film, and I am just happy its sourced and verifiable. Thanks. General Epitaph 06:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem; I take pride in my contributions to this article.  I don't know where you'd find so much information about the film in one spot.  Of course, there's always room for improvement.  I'm hoping to improve this article after I address Fight Club (film).  Let me know if you have any suggestions for structure and content for The Fountain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orion Nebula section 

message: I find that there is an important thematic connection without mention in the article.  When showing Tommy Xibalba, Izzi mentions that when the star dies and explodes its substance will help to create new stars.  Later, when she explains her reasoning behind planting a tree above a grave, the primary point was that the body's substance goes into the tree, and then goes on and supports other life.
The elements which make life possible originated in the violent deaths of stars.  When Thomas and the tree are vaporized in the supernova, their substance joined the star's in seeding the Galaxy and fostering more life.  Is this not the method by which they gained their immortality after death?  Without this bit of information, I find that the "future" story line is without purpose.
Silpion (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need to use reliable sources to mention that tie-in.  We can't make the connection ourselves since that'd be original research.  Perhaps Aronofsky's downloadable commentary has mention of it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the film itself Izzi states "Someday soon it will explode, die, and give birth to new stars".  I guess what I'm suggesting is a little something in the plot section to remind the reader of this important point she made rather than interpret it for them later in the article.  It would be nice to have such an interpretation included though.  If I have the time I may try to find such a source.  Thanks for mentioning the commentary, I will enjoy listening to that. Silpion (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something very similar to what you want can be found here -- http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30768 -- I think it comes closest (that I have seen so far) to Aronofsky answering "what is the Fountain, does the film have a central message, if so what is that message."  I believe this source material (if carefully/neutrally approached) could support your point. Sskoog (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks for posting that.  What he has to say about the theme does seem to support the idea, but he doesn't really say anything about the star.  I'm beginning to wonder if he was aware of how perfectly the stellar life cycle matches with his other thematic ideas.  Silpion (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thematic tie-in between the tree and the star 

message: I mean the good article template at the top of this discussion page.124.182.65.10 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't it be <b>an</b> Arts good article? 

message: Personally I would like to see more information about the factual background to the Conquistador part. Aronovsky himself talks about his interest in this period in the special features of the DVD. The religion and esoterism are framed with very precise symbolism throughout the film. There is a parable here and a belief system that should be addressed. Silencio is roughly synonomous with Torquemada, as is The Queen with Isabella I of Castile. It was she who granted Christopher Columbus sponsorship to sail to the Indies. 
There has also been a lot of speculation about miracle plant cures in the Amazon jungle, a branch of research that has been systematically supressed by the pharmaceutical giants, who patent the findings and sell placebos to a gullable public.
The best fiction may be cleverly disguised fact, and a way of drawing attention to hidden truths. This film has been too well thought out to be just a fairytale romance, to be sure...
Vachementchien (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical and Scientific  Background 

message: Right? Wasn't this a featured article? Could someone point me to why it is not and add that to the talk header? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be remembering it as an A-class article, but WP:FILM revised the assessment for that.  This article was not assessed with the new method, so it no longer had the A-class status.  Featured Articles need to go through the WP:FAC process, and this article hasn't done so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess It's also a good article, so I suppose I was confuzzled. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, A-class is between GA-class and FA-class, so it was demoted in that sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: An interesting theme is the continuity of the decorations in the conquistador and present-day scenes. There's first a parallell use of the decorations on the frosted glass hospital wall, which the protagonist views the woman through and the grid that the queen is first seen through. Patterns similar to the frosted glass are found everywhere in the bedroom, with a style that seem to mimick islamic art as seen for instance in al-hambra in southern spain. In the conquistador-period, the garb of some of the soldiers in the tent in the jungle reflect that of the moors who held Granada for a long time. This theme of geometric constructs is probably intentional, but contrary to the use of geometric constructs cited in the themes section. It do however reference an additional religion (Islam) which fits with the rest of the commentary on this film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.237.111 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thematic decorations

message: As I recall, Izzy (Weisz) recalls her tour guide, while doing research on Mayan cultures, talking about his father.  He states that a tree was grown out of his fathers grave; thus making him a part of the tree and in theory immortal.  As Tom (Jackmann) recalls this story, after Izzy's untimely death, he plants the seed at her grave so that she too will become part of the tree. Although not made clear in the movie, Tom would have made a medical breakthrough in defeating death, allowing him to travel inside the ship (bubble)hundreds of years later, with the tree that grew out from Izzy's grave. to the star where she can be reborn.  
H.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.169.68 (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it all that confusing? 

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Fountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: Pass===
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to look for any updates, or see if there were any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Pass

message: I seem to recall there were a small number of other "bubbles" visible in the nebula just before the end of the movie. That struck me as odd. Was I imagining this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other bubbles