Talk:Children of Men/Archive 4

message: Did society collapse because of the infertility?  This article seems to think so but i believe that in a conversation between the lead actor and Michael Caine Caine mentions that the world went to hell before infertility set in.  Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.111.166 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of the Societal Collapse 

message: Arcayne removed the following content with the claim of original research:
:Critics found Children of Men noteworthy for its heightened sense of realism, made possible with long, extended takes shot with a handheld camera and post-production techniques which joined the takes together.
As I see it, this content is an accurate (but incomplete) summary of the production and theme sections per WP:LEAD.  It needs expansion. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of that joining stuff, was there ever any sort of confirmation that the longer shots were faked (I think the one suspected of such was the running ginfight through Bexhill). I know there was the one report, but did that ever bear any fruit?Arcayne 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you already know, Alain Bielik discussed this with Double Negative and published it in VFX World.  The long shots are blended  together from other extended takes to make them even longer.  It's a technical detail.   This is why writers like Jim Ridley have observed, "almost everyone who's written about Children of Men has talked about [Cuarón's] use of long, unbroken takes..."  It's one of the most noteworthy aspects of the film, and it's discussed in technical detail in the production section, and in thematic detail in the themes section, and belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. Cuarón and Lubezki purposefully set out to use long shots to "give a balance between character and social environment," allowing characters to "blend" into the shot itself.  Cuarón describes the principle behind the long takes: "We would try to create a moment of truthfulness in which the camera would be there just to register that moment of truthfulness."  The vfx department simply smoothed over the rough edges, making the long shots appear longer with seamless transitions, making the impossible, possible. —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That clears it up for me.  Thanks for the lowdown.  Might be a good idea to actually see this movie based on all these merits... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Critic Nate Loomis wrote: "Though Children of Men is heavily stylized, it is the film's realism that is most stunning."  Critic Skip Sheffield also said: "Much of 'Children' is shot with hand-held camera to give it newsreel realism." —Viriditas | Talk 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The citation given in the article didn't actually establish that "unofficial sources" reported that the battle scene was done in five separate takes over two locations.  By all accounts, the long 6-minute take is a real, unspliced take. Bryantheis 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the cinematographer it was a single take, the final take of the last day in the last bit of light from the day.  OR though, I don't have a cite, I just heard him say it. User:Pedant 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the reference in this sentence: "Although it has been commonly reported that both this scene and a later climactic battle scene were filmed in continuous shots,[28] unofficial sources indicate that the latter was filmed in five separate takes over two locations and then seamlessly stitched together to give the appearance of a single take.[29]" does not say anything about that shot not being one single shot.  I think the sentence needs removing, as I rather believe the production staff over the uncited 'unofficial source'. User:Pedant 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source appears to be correct, and quotes official lead VFX production team members.  Could you visit the source and rewrite it? —Viriditas | Talk 07:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removed  

message: In order to prevent edit warring in the main article space and in the hopes of promoting harmonious and collaborative editing, a temp page has been setup as a workspace: Talk:Children of Men/Temp.  The cast section was successfully composed on this page, and I hope we can do the same with the lead.  Please join in and help out. —Viriditas | Talk 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp page 

message: Back to the cast section, because I'm interested in the little guys: should we add lesser actors such as Danny Huston, Pam Ferris and Peter Mullan, all of whom are mentioned in the plot section?  What about those who are not mentioned?  In what context?  I was thinking it may help, since minor character's names tend to bleed together, to group the cast section first in order of importance (which is rather how it is now) and then list the lesser characters by group; ie.  the Fishes, the refugee camp, etc.  I'm not saying we should list everyone, of course, but it may be interesting to play with.  I'll try to see if I can find a FA that has done this in the past, because I know I've seen it somewhere.  María: (habla ~ cosas)  13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see anything against adding a small trailer sentence like, "so and so plays so and so, a member of the group, the Fishes." I would keep it really short because they aren't major players. --Beanssnaeb 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast section

message: I've protected because there seems to have been quite a bit of edit warring for days, so hopefully protection will help to calm things down. Let me know when you're ready to start editing again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: I added a "Ark of Arts" section in the article. It would be good to document all the collected works in that ark, as showed in the movie as in the original novel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigopenalba (talk • contribs) 08:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is significant to the article as it's own section and it should be removed. --Beanssnaeb 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's maybe as significant as the soundtrack & music section. I think it should serve as an example of how Art & Aesthetics is part of the plot of this dystopia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigopenalba (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important for several reasons.  At present, the content is on the temp page, but I intend to split the theme section and merge this into the new subarticle. —Viriditas | Talk 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition to fleshing out a fictional world and perhaps illuminating the filmmaker's themes, it is more pragmatically valuable for viewers of the movie to find references to the real-life works of art prominently displayed in the Ark.  I am baffled as to why Radiohead's contribution is in the article but Pablo Picasso's is deemed insignificant.MatthewDaly 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section and related section were  removed by several editors due to OR allegations and lack of sources. I believe there are good sources available and I will take another look. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a "Ark of Arts" section 

message: At least three links do not appear to meet WP:ATT and may be removed:
#http://thecelebritycafe.com/movies/full_review/12073.html
#http://www.post-apocalypse.co.uk/childrenofmen.html 
#http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=3444
—Viriditas | Talk 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ATT]]

message: I recommend splitting the production (Production of Children of Men) and theme sections (Themes in Children of Men) into new articles.  The new articles should contain subsections. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current length is fine, and films like these don't really need sub-articles, rather further effective use of summary style. WikiNew 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Films just like this one make good use of sub-articles (2001, Blade Runner and V for Vendetta spring to mind) and I have an additional 40Kb of material to add to the article.  A number of incomplete tasks on the temp page also increase the projected length.  There's no hurry to split now, but the theme section will be ready in a few days or so. —Viriditas | Talk 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 40kb is fine. The "true" size of the article is not reflected by the number that appears when you click the edit button, because that number gives you the size of the article as it is with all the HTML and code hidden away. The size of the article should be reflected by the prose of the article. If the prose of the article begins to reach upwards of 50kb, then I could see finding areas to split. If the number, when in the editing section, reaches upwards of 60kb, I would think it can be safe to assume that the prose of the article has surpassed the 40kb mark. But, you can always just copy everything on the face of the article and save it to WORD and then see how large it really is on the surface. Article size is a MOS, and is not only about the size of the prose, but of the readibility of the section. If you can read it easily, even if it's a large section, then it's ok. Superman is 80kb in the editing screen, but it's FA. It's about how you organize and write it up. I think the themes section is fine, but if it continues to grow then you may need to subsection it. Production could definitely use some subsections. I personally believe in the "writing, casting, directing" subs of a production section. It helps break down the section into neat parts and they are generally the things most important to that section anyway. Just my thoughts on it all.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  04:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer a standard subtopic structure like writing, casting, directing, but there is great overlap in this film.  Owen was a writer, as was the director, and the cast has its own section.  Most important subsection would be "Single shot sequences", describing the roadside ambush and the Bexhill battle scenes.  I'm not sure, but I think the birth scene should also fall under the single shot sequence section. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 kilobyte warning 

message: ...since it was getting pretty crowded here. The address for the Temp page under the eponymous section, near the top.Arcayne 11:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Created an Archive

message: :I would ask that you not cite the script to support your arguments. It has been shown by more than one editor to be rife with errors. You yourself have admitted that the script is not the movie, so anything derived from the script is not really a reliable source for what actually occurred in the film.
:And not to throw your words back at you, Viriditas, but this all of the above supposition is quite simply OR, and unusable. None of this has been directly stated in a review. However, if they have, please cite each of your statements.Arcayne 12:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said to you previously, if you can't address the topic, don't comment.  I was not arguing for inclusion of anything, but discussing trivia and raw ideas in the context of development. You seem to be confused about the script and discusion pages.  Please tone down your combative behavior.  Development discussions do not require citations.  It's a form of brainstorming. In any case, the material you removed was fully sourced, so you don't seem to care if anything is sourced anyway, so your concern is somewhat ironic. —Viriditas | Talk 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I contribute here as well, I am fairly confident that I am not in need of your permission to comment. Maybe you could "brainstorm" on your own sandbox, instead of taking up all this space arguing for something that has already been decided upon - something you have accused others of doing a great many times. It is not combative to point out where your own statments and behavior contradict your current bahavior and commentary. I am suggesting that you are a bit too close to this particular article, and both you and the article might benefit from you taking a bit of a break from it.Arcayne 12:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the third time, please keep your off-topic suggestions to yourself. This talk page is for brainstorming and discussion. Furthermore, I suggest you take some time to read and familiarize yourself with WP:TALK.  Do not alter comments made by other editors without their permission. Now, while you are busy learning about Wikipedia, I will continue discussing the topic and contributing to the article.  Have fun. —Viriditas | Talk 12:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing script

message: It seems to me that it is a bit bloated. Good information there, but still, where is the line?Arcayne 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The line is drawn at size.  We then split the section to a new page and add content, summary style.  The production section is still growing; there is a lot missing. —Viriditas | Talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but the plot is only 819 words long, and both the themes and production sections are over a 1000 words now. There should be a way to condense that. Since that seems to be your pet, why not work with that?Arcayne 10:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestion, but the discussion has been ongoing for the last ten days in the section, "40 kilobyte warning".  Please feel free to discuss it there. —Viriditas | Talk 10:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that seem to be an excellent reasoning for resolving the issue? I mean, 10 days is a long time for you to be arguing and angry, Viriditas. Maybe you should take a break for a bit, and recharge your batteries.Arcayne 12:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your concern, but if you can't address the topic, please don't comment. I don't see any arguing or anger in the "40 kilobyte section" from anybody.  If you are having difficulty reading, you could always try the Simple English wiki. —Viriditas | Talk 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make an effort to be more Civil. Calling contributors meat puppets and sock-puppets is uncivil.Arcayne 13:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Jim.  The process for working with long sections is outlined in WP:SIZE and related pages linked to it.  We're hovering around 40 kilobytes, so there's no need to do anything just yet except add sub-sections.  See the related discussion above, in the section entitled "40 kilobyte warning".  Also, we have a temp page setup at Talk:Children of Men/Temp - could you move your revision to the theme section on that page?  Could you also point out the parts you consider off-topic?  There is some slight crossover between production and themes due to Cuaron's stylistic approach.  As I see it, the production and theme sections will double in size, with sub-sections separating sub-topics.  Then, we can split, summary style from the main articles.  If you look closely at the production and theme sections, you can see that the content is already separated by sub-topics, and is ready for headers.  For example, production has adaptation, preparation and influences, single shot sequences (the most notable sub-topic requiring expansion), and VFX, as well as others. Themes has hope and immigration as parallel primary topics, as well as contemporary references to popular culture (Iraq, etc.) and religion.  The heroic journey theme is also dominant, and I'm presently working on expanding it (see the theme tasks on the temp page waiting to be added).  It may be possible to move some content from one section to the other, or to keep it separate.  Basically, we are at a point where sub-topics can be grouped into sub-section headers, and the main articles can be split.  Then, a summary style similar to your proposed revision can be placed into the main page. I don't see the article as "bloated", but in need of headings and splitting. If you could help preserve the content, but group it into sub-topics, that would help us see what should stay and what should go.  With you and A Man in Black working on this article, we should be at FA status in a month or two. —Viriditas | Talk 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Production section

message: The Themes section appears to suffer from bloat. The content is good, but it appears incremental edits have resulted in poor organization, redundant statements and paragraphs, and unnecessary length. Consequently, I took the material, trimmed it a bit and revised to put the ideas in a cohesive format. Also, a small amount of additional material has been added to help tie the main points together.
Please take a few minutes to review a proposed revision for this section, and then leave comments and suggestions below.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above. —Viriditas | Talk 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes section in need of revision 

message: I'm suprised there isn't an article on her yet on Wikipedia. Honestly, I'd think she'd garnered a little publicity (she has worked on other movies, after searching through Yahoo and IMDB) from working on CoM. Also, why is she not listed in the lead paragraph? The "main" bad guy is listed, yet to me he has a less substantial role than Kee. I'm not saying he's not important, but that he's seemingly less important than Kee/Claire-Hope. Is the reason she wasn't included in the lead paragraph(s) because she didn't have a Wikipedia article? Disinclination 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the reason, as I didn't write it.  Can you just go ahead and make your changes?  If anyone objects, we'll point them here. —Viriditas | Talk 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty. For those who want to discuss it, they can. I've just noticed several changes to the "main" cast sentence in the lead paragraph, and I've always wondered why she was never included. Disinclination 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claire-Hope Ashitey 

message: Jim has developed a new lead section on the temp page.  I would like him to add it to the main article, but the last time we added an unsourced summary in the lead, some editors took advantage and began adding original research.  —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Well, that certainly wasn't OR. Arcayne 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead 

message: A similar film in the 80s with the last baby in the world in some sort of test tube-ish artificial womb. When the baby floated to the top it meant it was dying... very similar and such. Does anyone remember what this movie was called? I think since they are so similar it should be mentioned in both articles as the themes are very alike (one unborn child is the hope of all mankind in a dystopian future where everyone is infertile). --Ihmhi 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you find a good, reliable source making that observation, we can't add it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I remember... 

message: Throughout a significant part of the film we can see Clive Owen wearing a worn off or washed-out 'London 2012' Olympics jumper. Only 'DON' letters are still clearly visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.63.61 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going from memory here, but I think I have a couple of reliable sources for this trivia if anyone thinks it has a place in the body of the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to the past and future events or Trivia 

message: I've read about some interest in a Cast section, but I'd be really interested in reading about each of the (10 maybe?) characters featured in this film.  Perhaps a paragraph summarizing their actual role in the plot and then some room for analysis.  The characters I'd be most interested in reading other people's opinions about would be characters like Patric (sic) (one of the Fishes, the one with the blonde dreads that keeps getting hit with the car door), Syd, and some in-depth on Marichka.  Also it would be interesting to see how some of the more prominent characters change in terms of attitude etc.  Would anyone else be interested? Easymac08 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The characters I'd be most interested in reading other people's opinions about..."  The problem with that, Easymac08, is that Wikipedia is not where you should be looking if you're interested in discussing opinions, no matter the subject.  If you want to share and discuss ideas about character motivations and attitudes, perhaps you should seek out a forum (such as where it would be more suitable to discuss such subjects.  We're only interested in what is citable and reliable, not what can be theorized (unless it's stated by someone in authority, such as the director or actor).  María: (habla conmigo) 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters section? 

message: Why do both exist? I'd say, remove the Characters section and expand the Cast section. Chickenmonkey 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters/Cast

message: I don't know if this is particularly relevant, but it's probably worth mentioning in the trivia section.
Apparently it just won a vote by Virgin Media (British cable TV supplier) customers for the movie that they most wanted to see in the blockbuster category of Virgin's TV on demand.perfectblue 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And next week, it will be Spongebob or Pathfinder or any one of a numbe of different films. And we don't need trivia sections because they are - to coin a friend of mine - trivial, they don't belong in most articles, except as possible construction parts for prose. I used to be a believer in trivia sections. I know now that was being lazy. Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience vote 

message: The first sentence of the current version identifies the movie as a "post-apocalyptic science fiction film." It seems to me that it's really not yet post-apocalyptic in that there is still some semblance of order in society, although that is clearly only in certain metropolitan areas and it is rapidly disappearing. "Post-apocalyptic" would apply better to Mad Max 2, A Boy and His Dog, and other films that take place after civil society has been completely destroyed. So I recommend changing the description to just "apocalyptic." --MrWhipple 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree except that there is evidence of some countries being decimated by nuclear weapons; if you look at the newspapers when the Fishes kidnap Theo you see that Kazakhstan & some other countries were wiped out. (Personally, I think the fallout caused the sterility epidemic...). But, the point you bring up about Britain maintaining "order" (which it really hasn't, look at all the chaos...) is interesting. Tommyt 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's better described as 'apocalyptic'; the fundamental problem in the film's society is not nuclear fallout but the infertility and the consequent belief that mankind is doomed. The characters are in the apocalypse, not after it.Cop 633 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that apocalyptic is a better word choice, as the post- part happens off camera, in other countries. England is just dancing with the Reaper, and not quite done in yet. Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post-apocalyptic" or just "apocalyptic"? 

message: What on earth does this article have to do with Eastern Europe? -Joshuapaquin 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because the look of the film is dark and gloomy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordinho (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. —Viriditas | Talk 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the adder of the tag, it was because, somehow, the article fell into a category which eventually placed it in the <noinclude:Category:Hungary</noinclude>. My guess is the fact that it's a Serbo-Croatian language film. No real objections to seeing it removed. But, potentially, if the very new project ever becomes very active, it is possible someone else might add the tag again. John Carter 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Eastern Europe? 

message: The character 'Patric' is mentioned being killed, but he was never introduced earlier. This is a little confusing. As I recall he was the Fish that staged the ambush that killed Julian.
Also, are you absolutely sure it was the Fishes that found Jasper's hide out and killed him? I've only seen the movie once, but I could have sworn that was the police. They were also hunting Theo, Miriam & Kee at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.243.125.61 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I thought too, but they didn't look as organized as a trained police squad should/might be. Disinclination 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Fishes. It's Chiwetel Ejiofor's character who shoots Jasper. Cop 633 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cop is correct. It's dah fishes. And here you thought they were just swimming around a tank, looking peaceful. Nope, they're out shooting John Lennon lookalikes. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor plot quibbles 

message: First of all, how is it promoting a bias toward the Academy Awards, as Erik mentioned? Secondly, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article description, as it is noteworthy. No, it may not have won, but being nominated is noteworthy enough. I simply gave reference to other articles that mentioned a similar stance, regardless of whether or not they were winnters or only nominees. Minority Report was only nominated.
:In musical pages, gold, platinum and diamond sales are mentioned in article descriptions. Why should it not be the same here?
Enfestid 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freakishly, I agree with Viriditas here. The article has 17 sections, and awards is but one of them. The Lead is supposed to be an overview of the article. Mentioning the fact that it was only nominated for an American Academy award isn't really a sbstantial part of that overview. You might instead suggest that the Lead include the fact that it is an award winning film, and leave it at that. Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most important are the style guidelines set forth by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films which state The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced. Please note that it is the second paragraph that gets information pertaining to the films impact (e.g. any awards that it garners). Winning an Academy Award, no matter how unbiased or biased you think it is to mention, still doesn't belong in the lead sentence, let alone that first paragraph anyway, as it has nothing to do with "the basics", because it's something comes after the fact.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: One could also add that it wasn't nominated for the most important Academy Awards (at least, important to the general public). If it had won Best Picture or Best Actor, I might support mentioning it in the first sentence, but being nominated for Best Editing, Screenplay and Cinematography isn't so spectacular.Cop 633 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mentioning both the AA and BAFTA as it is now works well. Also, Editing, Screenplay and Cinematography are HUGE awards. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Academy Award Mention

message: As a lot of these conversations are pretty old or conclusive, it might be nifty to do some archiving at some point, Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then...if no one has a problem, I will archive the discussion page (excepting open conversations) on Wednesday. Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving?

message: Is the genre of this film also in the cyberpunk tradition? Pablosecca 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say not, since there is little focus on technology to move the story along, which is a key component of cyberpunk. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyberpunk