Talk:The Man from Earth

message: i don't know how to edit wikipedia, so could someone include his letter to Releaselog, thanking them? it's located at http://www.rlslog.net/piracy-isnt-that-bad-and-they-know-it/ - thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.15.240 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to letter 

message: "Producers Schenkman (sellingrs), Bixby (Emerson_Bixby) and Wilkinson (EWilkinson100) have all written comments on IMDb forums and responded to questions from fans.[citation needed]"
Why a citation is needed if I can look in IMDB and see for myself?
If I say that Amazon.com sells books and DVDs I need to cite a reputable source?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.236.203 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason a citation to a reliable source is required is that we have no way of knowing for sure if the contributors to that forum are indeed the people they say they are. However, if a well-known critic or reporter confirms that the contributions are in fact from Emerson Bixby or Schenkman, then the statement can be used (with a ref to the source).Jim Dunning | talk 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know how Bixby can post on forums if he's been dead since 1998 ... 91.104.152.54 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's his son, Emerson, that is (allegedly) doing the posting. No channeling involved.Jim Dunning | talk 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: Maybe some discussion of possible and confirmed influences on the story might be useful. The plot struck me as a combination of a Twilight Zone episode (which also involved an immortal history professor) and a Star Trek episode (which involved an immortal who, like the character in Man from Earth, described his process of staying in one place for a while, appearing to age, and moving on, lived in mesopotamia, etc.). Since Bixby was involved with both shows, it might be useful to readers to comment on the creative process behind the plot, including where the ideas came from. C d h (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that would be useful information. The story also reminded me very strongly of the book Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins, in which the king of a Germanic tribe in the middle ages discovers immortality and travels the world, surviving until modern times and interacting with modern characters. I wonder if there might be some connection or influence between the novel and this film. I also got a kick out of one of Tony Todd's lines at the end of the film: "I'm going to go home and watch Star Trek for a dose of sanity." Todd was a frequent guest star on TNG and DS9. 98.212.158.76 (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (un-wiki of me) I thought it was okay - but it seemed very stagey. All Men Are Mortal is an obvious antecedent. One point - if he wasn't immortal (un-killable) - then it's very unlikely he would have survived. Assume the accidental death + homicide rate is 1/1000 per year. Playing those odds 70 times seems risky - try those same odds 14,000 times. Binomial probability is a killer. My best guess at the probability of him surviving 14,000 years would be about 1/5000. To put it another way - once you've been alive for 693 years - you've got a 50% chance of being killed by an accident. Megapixie (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for taking your statement literally, but once you've been alive for 693 years - you do not have a 50% chance of being killed by an accident, those odds are still at 1 to 1000 that year. I think what you meant is that there is a 50% chance of such an accident occurring over a period of 693 years. Subtle but important difference. Statistical independence  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.134.14 (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: I removed the spoiler from the intro and the change was reverted.  Am I missing something here?  The whole point of the movie is speculating whether John's story is true or not and the Wiki article gives that away in the intro section.  What is Wikipedia policy on this?  Why give away the whole movie?  This makes the entire article of questionable value in my opinion.  --Jperlin (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot descriptions and the rest of the article are not to exclude information just because it "gives away" ("spoils") plot twists and the ending. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool or a place for readers to check on movie (or book) reviews. It consists of articles that fully discuss themes, story lines, plot development, and all other elements of a work of fiction. That's why there are no spoiler warnings and why the "spoiler" information you (in good faith) removed was reinstated. Hope this helps.Jim Dunning | talk 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler 

message: I've noticed that my change has been reverted. At the end of the film, the film showed that John Oldman is clearly the father of Dr. Will Gruber. If he wasn't a bona-fide immortal, he wouldn't be able to be Dr Will Gruber's father. Also, the part where John Oldman said he played along with his friends is indeed an act, as evident by the conversation with Sandra. Thus, I'm reverting back to my original post. --DoomScythe (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Oldman - Bonafide Cro-Magnon 

message: The reviews section of the article has nothing but good reviews. does anyone have sources that have more criticizing reviews? This movie is far from perfect. I have seen a few, but they're all in blogs, and I don't think that passes WP:RS. --Nezek (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "bad" reviews because there have been none. You may find critical analysis in some more academic reviews that question certain factors within the movie - criticism of certain minor factors, and occasional perhaps "clunkyness" in parts of the plot or dialogue - but to use them might give them to much weight as the rest will be highly positive. It is not impossible to find movies with only positive review, but it is unusual. This is one of those movies. The7thdr (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The7thdr is right. You can look it up on rottentomatoes here to find three more positive reviews...and no negative ones. And on imdb the median vote is 9 out of 10. --Blogjack (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard several critics that say the movie is a propaganda of some sort. However, with this number of enthusiastic fans "protecting" the article, I think even the slightest bit of criticism is unlikely to survive more than a couple of hours. --91.8.249.247 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: That section ought not to appear in Wikipedia. It not only violates NPOV, it's also a set of miscellanous info. Consider deleting it?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil  13:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: *"A considerable achievement... a picture which deserves wide exposure... The Man From Earth gradually and stimulatingly builds to a pitch of near hypnotic intensity." – Neil Young, The Hollywood ReporterThe Man From Earth - The Hollywood Reporter, Film review
* "Based on a really wonderful final work by Jerome Bixby... If you’re a fan of Bixby's – it's a must own." – Harry Knowles, Ain’t It Cool NewsHarry's DVD PICKS AND PEEKS for 2nd Week of November - Ain't It Cool News, Film review
* "The Man From Earth restores dignity to science fiction of the mind." - Michael Guillen, Twitch2007 HOLEHEAD—REVIEW of Man From Earth - Twitch, Film review
* "A tall tale... that ends with a devastatingly clever twist." - Michael Janusonis, The Providence JournalReliving the really old days with The Man From Earth - The Providence Journal, Film review
* "Great acting performances... with an ending you wouldn't want to miss... Jerome Bixby's last written work has turned out to be his best." - Hock Teh, IGNThe Man From Earth DVD Review - IGN, Film review
* "A mind bending drama... It sure beats watching Transformers." - Nick Lyons, DVD TalkJerome Bixby's The Man from Earth - DVD Talk, Film review
* "The Man From Earth is very much a labor of love from all involved... it's well worth the effort. The final work from the writer responsible for some of the finest episodes of The Twilight Zone and the original Star Trek gets a thoughtful, low-budget treatment." – Ian Spelling, Sci Fi.comMan from Earth - Sci-Fi Weekly, Film review
* "Jerome Bixby's The Man From Earth is one of the most intelligent science fiction films ever made... probably one of the best science fiction films of the decade." – Mark R. Leeper, Stephen Hunt's SF Crows NestThe Man From Earth: Mark's take - Stephen Hun's SF Crow's nest, Film review
* "The Man From Earth really has a chance of being the single best piece of screenwriting you will see on a screen large or small this year (really!)." – Late FilmIs Jerome Bixby's The Man from Earth this years sleeper hit? - Late Film, Film review
Moving this here for the references. Maybe someone wants to write a bit of proper prose about critical reception. In its current form, this is entirely unsuitable for mainspace. --78.35.194.173 (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews section (moved from article) 

message: does this movie really fall under scifi? 98.117.186.191 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, reliable sources call it a science fiction film. It may not involve future technology, but it does meet one of the definitions of science fiction: "Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature." The main character's nature qualifies as such. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no fictional scientific or technical achievement, therefore it is fiction, but not science fiction. The fact that the main character contradicts the laws of nature does not make it science fiction, otherwise every fantasy story would be science fiction. --2003:70:EE2A:FA17:8159:A05A:99E2:8F78 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  scifi? 

message: where do i add that the producers are working on a sequel?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1759006687/the-man-from-earth-ii-man-from-earth-millennium
Update: The sequel was released in 2017. Will it get its own wiki page? It seems to have been a lot less successful than this movie. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5770864/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedrickSchu (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  sequel 

message: Is there any particular reason why we have a list of films in the see also?  I don't think it serves any particular purpose – certainly not an encyclopedic one.  If you guys want to give out a list of recommendations, then try a blog.  I think it should be removed, obviously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read WP:ALSO? Do you not agree that the links easily fall within the scope of the "See also" section? – JBarta (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it, and as far as I can tell, the current list does not comply with this sentence: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Firstly, they aren't relevant to this topic and would definitely have no place in a comprehensive article on the topic, at least in my opinion. The other subjects listed are related through somewhat similar plots, and that's it. And the last one is not even objective; this list is far too long. Sock (tock talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a valid "see also" link would be to immortality in fiction, list of fictional immortals, or both.  Partially recreating those lists here, embedded in the "see also" section, does not strike me as a good idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for something like immortality in fiction before I came here, and I think that is the appropriate link to have (though I admit that article is crummy in organizing the content). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

text: NinjaRobotPirate, perfect solution. I would gladly support keeping the first (Requiem for Methuselah), removing the rest and adding immortality in fiction and list of fictional immortals. – JBarta (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find, ! This was a rare example of a disagreement getting solved very quickly and with civility. And the final outcome is even better! Sorry that I wasn't quite as reserved as I usually am, I got me some wikistress this morning. Sock (tock talk) 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did a few preliminary searches when I first edited the article, but I couldn't find anything relevant.  It wasn't until I posted here that I had the obvious idea of looking at .  Erik is right, though.  Immortality in fiction is a mess.  Maybe I should create a few redirects to that article, as none of us could even find it for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of film recommendations in the see also 

message: I just finished watching this movie, and as soon as he started the Beethoven recording I knew that it was the Karajan from 1962, which I happen to have on disk. Listening to it after I am fairly sure that the recording is the exact same. Any way to verify this information? ~SamwiseFilmore 98.215.53.33 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beethoven Recording