Talk:Michael Clayton

message: I believe that there should be some mention of the strangeness of the release of this film.  I was made aware of it watching the YouTube review from "Reel Geezers" where it is mentioned in passing that the non descriptive name "Michael Clayton" may have been chosen to detract attention from the film (wouldn't "The Janitor" have been better?).  It must have been brought up elsewhere as well.  Also, the movie was pushed from small theaters to a much wider release within a much shorter period than the norm.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.117.10 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and Rumors 

message: Shouldn't this page be moved to "Michael Clayton" and have that article go to "Michael Clayton (American football player)"? This film is probably more notable than some nobody receiver on the Bucs. -albrozdude 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: This summary of the film is well written, like it was written by somebody working on the script. I don't see what problem there is with the "tone" of the writing except the mention of the swear word. The film is quite good and deserves a more complete article. Get working, y'all.Markemory 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the older, completer version. There was no claim that it was a copyright violation.--Patrick 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to it, don't delete it 

message: The review makes no mention that the reason Michael Clayton stops by the side of the road to look at the three horses standing between two trees is because he saw that exact image inside the book his son has read and wanted him to read (and also thru a phone conversation Michael's friend Arthur had also read, it is inside Arthur's loft that Michael finds a copy of the book and while flipping thru it for clues comes upon that image).  It was luck, but also because thematically Michael was thus "saved" by his son in a way, since at that point of the story Michael was likely fed up with his existence and how his life has turned out, but seeing those horses reminded him of his love for his family and his son's innocence and probably helped put the chaotic past few days into perspective for him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.181.134.212 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that, briefly.--Patrick 10:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a source on this, that's original research. I didn't figure it out until I read this. Frankly I thought it meant that he was really a replicant the whole time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Interpretated stuff! But marvellous story-lining. Michael climbing out of his car, just to approach three horses and by this unmotivated' action, saving his own live. Strange or instincfull, a citoyen reveals his roots, being a cowboy like anybody else in amerika is. Horses mean you have to stop and talk to them, otherwise something bad will happen.HE#s in contact with his subconsciousness._ and pardon me, I haven't seen him throwing his phone and papers into the burning car. He needs his phone lateron for
the heart-coup.Fabulous recipients?!--88.77.205.178 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Three Horses

message: I was confused in the movie, and see no reference to the situation here, by Clayton's debt to Organized Crime.  The plot does explain that he setup a bar as a way to provide retirement/alternative income, etc, and it also explains that his brother who ran the bar was an alcoholic who ran the bar into the ground.  But why did he end up owing $75k to Organized Crime?   Was this introduced to show that he was 'on the fringe of the law'? Steerpike58 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He took his brother's debt on to protect him. The associate explains to him that the debt is not his.98.240.67.27 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Clayton's debt to Organized Crime

message: ===1===
*Exclusive: Michael Clayton's Tony Gilroy
*Clooney on Clayton
*Tony Gilroy Interview - Michael Clayton
*Capone With Writer/Director Tony Gilroy About MICHAEL CLAYTON, And AICN!!
*George Clooney is Mr Congeniality
*George Clooney: In the eye of the storm
*'Hard to Find a Good Script,' Says Clooney
*Corporate corruption seduces George Clooney into a job
*Tony Gilroy directs corporate-paranoia thriller 'Michael Clayton'
*Tony Gilroy takes firm control (dead)
===2===
*George Clooney jokes around with lawyer flick Michael Clayton
*Hey, Clooney: A little aspirin with your premiere?
*The man with the golden touch
*George Clooney in Michael Clayton
*A new breed of superhero
*Clooney flashes back to the 1970s in 'Michael Clayton'
*George Clooney, the restless one
*Clooney's Movie Illustrates A Paranoid Age
*Clooney Tackles Ethics in New Film 'Michael Clayton'
*A Different Role
===3===
*Clooney makes a case for 'Clayton'
*'Michael Clayton' has clout
*George faces up to his conscience
*Vintage 1970s effects give a subtle edge to new films
*George Clooney Faces Own Conscience in 'Michael Clayton'
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the 3 separate sections mean? Why are there 3 numbered sections? Does it mean something? Why are these headlines distincted by sections separately? Is there any reason? I can't figure it out but am interested to know. THANKS 76.254.86.157 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's just my way of breaking up the batch of headlines into chunks of ten each.  That way, it's easier to click [edit] in a certain chunk and strike out a headline that's been used up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources 

message: *Clooney makes a case for 'Clayton'
*'Michael Clayton' has clout
*George faces up to his conscience
*Vintage 1970s effects give a subtle edge to new films
*George Clooney Faces Own Conscience in 'Michael Clayton'
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the 3 separate sections mean? Why are there 3 numbered sections? Does it mean something? Why are these headlines distincted by sections separately? Is there any reason? I can't figure it out but am interested to know. THANKS 76.254.86.157 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's just my way of breaking up the batch of headlines into chunks of ten each.  That way, it's easier to click [edit] in a certain chunk and strike out a headline that's been used up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 3

message: *Tony Gilroy and His "Parallel Universe Thriller"
*An Investor Gets a Hollywood Ending
*Why Tilda Swinton is pale and interesting
*'I pick directors, not parts'
*Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
*Production Notes
*Q&A: George Clooney
*Strongest film scripts come from dive into unknown
--J.D. (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: Since Warner Bros publicly announced that they will choose Blu-Ray exclusively, is this movie still coming out on HD-DVD?
--Scuac (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD-DVD release 

message: The actor who plays Michael's brother and NYPD detective is named Sean Cullen. This article links to an article about a Canadian comic with the same name. I noticed the discrepancy, but am not sure what to do about it, so I thought to bring it up here. --Paul  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.64.67 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up, Paul. This edit shows how it was fixed (there currently is no Wikipedia article for that particular Sean Cullen, so I de-linked the actor's name).Jim Dunning | talk 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Cullen 

message: I'm recommending the Michael Clayton (soundtrack) article be Merged into the Soundtrack section of this article. The Soundtrack article is a Stub and further development is unlikely. I've already inserted the other article's copy into this article and there appears to be no length issue. Discussion is at Talk:Michael Clayton (soundtrack)#Merge_proposal.Jim Dunning | talk 23:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack article merge proposal 

message: How did they kill him? What was it they put in his mouth? Some kind of poison? I thought they injected him, though. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They zap him with some sort of Taser-like weapon which immobilizes him. Then they inject him between the toes with a solution that kills him. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of the murder 

message: Something I have not clearly understand. Eden, one of sixhundert laywers in the coopreation Clayton works in, found material against
U_north.Did he work for them or the farmers? His break down is constituted on information he got from criminal activities.
So he changes sides  as a worker for U_north.The shown film material internal discussion and his freak out comes to Cauder to which channels?! The borders aren't that clear.--Matida (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He works for the law firm that is defending UNorth. But over time, the guilt of defending an ostensibly guilty company causes him to crack. It is after this breakdown, when his coworkers begin going through his stuff that they realize that he'd begun building a case against UNorth while at the same time purporting to defend the company. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which side was Eden on?! 

message: The Plot description says, "In the middle of a crucial deposition involving a class action lawsuit against the firm's largest client, United Northfield (also known as U-North, and possibly a fictional version of Monsanto), an agricultural products conglomerate ...". I'm not sure why Monsanto needs to be mentioned here. I see someone's gone to the trouble to cite this comparison, but one source describes the "connection" as "it is a Monsanto mock-up with Orwellian advertising reminiscent of Chevron’s “Do People Care?” campaign." Leaving out the references to Orwell and Chevron's ad campaign mischaracterizes the source's comparison, and saying "fictional" is not equivalent to "mock-up" and creates the impression the screenwriters/producers are intentionally depicting Monsanto. The other source (Vanity Fair) states, "Still, more than one Web log claims to see similarities between Monsanto and the fictional company “U-North". While Vanity Fair seems a great source at first blush, the journalist is merely referencing what blogs say, which are not considered reliable sources. Since neither article makes an explicit comparison between U-North and Monsanto other than they are in the same industry, to paint Monsanto with the U-North cancer brush is inaccurate.
I'm recommending the Monsanto reference be removed.Jim Dunning | talk 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Jim Dunning, the more you read about Monsanto, the less Michael Clayton seems fictional. Compare Agent Orange and Roundup! --217.232.75.43 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: An other source: http://www.slate.com/id/2175306/nav/tap3/ : The firm's prize client is U/North, a Monsanto-esque agrochemical corporation nearing the end of a class-action lawsuit that's dragged on for six years over the company's promotion of a cancer-causing weedkiller.  --217.232.75.43 (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And here. And here. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you FilmFan69, I quote from your first link, Marie-Monique Robin: "So I dove in, and started finding out how they had hidden data, lied, manipulated—it’s incredible. When I told this to Arte, they thought it would be interesting to show how all this stuff is available."... “principle of substantial equivalence”... (YES, THE THRUTH CAN BE AJUSTED) “In the United States, there’s been an explosion in food allergies in the last 10 years. One hypothesis is that it’s because of GMOs. But we don’t know, because there’s no way of tracing it!”... I'm so sad for you all, folks, who have to buy food in USA and Canada!--217.232.57.146 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to put too much stock in it, but can we be absolutely certain people that are foaming at the mouth when someone/anyone mentions something/anything that could be construed as even remotely critical of the saintly Monsanto company are not on said company's payroll? 82.181.201.82 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm the editor who originally added the Monsanto comment. Granted, I did so without declaring a reliable source, but it just seemed to painfully obvious that U-North was a caricature of Monsanto. Call it original research if you want. - CaptainAmerica (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monsanto comparison is inaccurate and unnecessary 

message: The plot summary is overall well done, but one flaw is that it omits any mention of "Realm & Conquest," which is critical to understanding the film.  The reason Michael gets out of the car to look at the horses is the vista reminds him of the picture he saw in the book in Arthur's apartment.  By getting out of the car, of course, he fortuitously avoids getting killed by the bomb.  The book and the horses, in effect, save his life.  Michael takes the experience to be his "summons" to do the right thing, a concept which was explained in an earlier conversation Henry has with Arthur about the book.  It also shows how Henry's moral innocence, derived largely from the book (which serves as his moral compass), is pivotal to his father's physical and moral salvation.  The book thus frames the existential context underlying the film and is indispensable to the denouement.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Realm & Conquest

message: The section of this article labeled "Production" seems dangerously on the verge of POV, if it isn't actually, and furthermore contains indications suggesting that it is lifted directly from promotional materials for the film (present tense quotes, strictly complimentary descriptions, etc.).  I'd like to know what others think before attempting a redo of this section.Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The text can be found verbatim on http://www.montebubbles.net/michael_clayton.htm, which seems to have taken it from the old michaelclayton.com promotional website. I've excised the entire section. Uucp (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Production section POV?

message: I've re-inserted the original plot section after it had been mostly deleted and reworded (with no edit summary) by an anon IP. The plot section may indeed be overly long, however a deletion as substantial as what occurred should be discussed here first. ponyo (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot section

message: This should be added, if WP:RS can be found. This is possible, since the film got an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Were the writer(s) known for any other work?  Reify-tech (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenplay development

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved --   JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Who played Michael Clayton's brother, Tim/Timmy? 2603:6011:7800:8943:9915:DF1C:760:F80D (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 May 2020