Talk:Empire of the Sun (film)

message: The plot summary was marked as overlong some times ago.  I've trimmed it a bit, but it's still too detailed. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: I've been watching the English vs Welsh edit-war that's currently taking place. I thought Christian Bale was Welsh? How can he be a Welsh actor at one point in his career and then evolve into an English actor? If I was an actor (I'm English) and I moved to America, I'd still be classed as an English actor, surely? Someone please elaborate, thanks —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ryan, I don't consider this an edit war, but he is listed as a Welsh-born English actor but at the time of his audition, he was only identified as a young "Welsh actor" which is the arcane point I think I am making since the original statement indicated "at the time" of the audition. Very minor issue indeed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I don't understand, how can one be a Welsh-born Englishmen when they're two separate countries. Surely they must be one or the other. I always assumed Bale to be Welsh, not English —— RyanLupin • (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, but that's the moniker that appears with him in another Wiki article.  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit-war taking place 

message: Since the slight edit conflict is over between me (Wildroot) and Bzuk, I think this article can be ready to go to WP:GAN. Since Alientraveller is an extraordinary editor and has done "polishes" on my various GA articles before nomination, I will ask him for some mild consultant help. I still have one small (sort of) problem. I feel Empire of the Sun is a small article at 22,000 bytes (there's nothing wrong with that), thus we do not really need a lead that big. My original lead is found here, but Bzuk concurred. Anyway, any concerns can be addressed here before I ask of Alientraveller. Cheers. —Wildroot (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current lede is not large, it is, in fact, almost exactly the same size as the old lede. According to Microsoft Word:Old lede - 187 words, 973 characters, 1158 characters with spacesCurrent lede - 183 words, 893 characters, 1173 characters with spaces.So the current lede is four words shorter than the old lede.  The current lede is preferable, as it's organized somewhat better, and reads more fluidly.  No change of lede is necessary. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Eh, whatever."Guidelines" are just what they say, guidance, not absolute dogma to be slavishly followed.  My "wacky" idea is that the article should have a layout that is designed to present information to the reader in a logical way: first we present an opening section briefly describing the film (the lede) and giving the most salient facts about (the infobox), then we plunge into a more detailed description of the film.  First, we give the plot, then tell who was in the film, followed by a discussion of its reception and the awards it garnered.  Now that we've presented the film itself, we can discuss its contents (themes, analysis, whatever).  Finally, we wrap up the article with all that bottom stuff. Given this scheme, it makes little sense to have a meta-discussion about the film (themes) before you've actually finished discussing the film itself.As for the "cast notes", the intention of this subsection is to deal with minor or interesting cast information that doesn't easily fit into a straight-forward cast list.  It doesn't have to be a formal sub-section (in fact I've only started doing that recently because some people seemed to prefer it), so I'll convert it to a non-section, it that's what's wanted.Regarding who you get in, it makes no difference to me, I'm willing to talk to anyone about anything, and Erik is a fine editor, even though we sometimes disagree.  However, please note that the "argument from authority" carries very little weight with me.  Erik, like every other editor, needs to present logical, reasonable and convincing arguments, not simply point to a guideline (which I don't believe he would do in any case, knowing his work).Finally, I apologize for undoing your edit without an edit summary - it's a bad habit that I'm trying to break myself of, with somewhat less than satisfactory results. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, yeah, I think it's better separated.  The material in the last graf doesn't much relate to where the second graf has gone to, so passing from one thought to the other in the same paragraph would just be awkward.  It's because the second graf starts as being about production matters - which would OK to move into filming locations from - but then gets into a more analytical stance, comparing Speilberg to Ballard, and it's wierd to go from that back into production.On the other hand, the filming location stuff doesn't really need to be there at all, as long as it's covered in the body of the article, so you could drop that and tack the last sentence (not a hit) onto the second paragraph.Let me try that and see what you think. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've done that, with some adjusting, and moved the sentence about locations into production.  The lede may be a little sparse now, but I can live with it if you think it's better. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Willingness for GA status

message: All other contributors have rightly identified major problems with the bold statements in this section and the confusing structure of the sentence quoted at the start of the paragraph below. This is the article for the film, not the book. Whether or not the book may have references to escape themes, Jim's preoccupation with flight and aeroplanes predates his internment, and the other sensory cues accompanying aeroplane scenes are not evocative of danger or tension. Both of these facts fail to support an unsourced statement that flying symbolises the possibility and danger of escape. Far less tenuous claims about the flying theme could be made, not drawing on extraneous symbolism, but rather than replace the current content with more modest assertions, it is instead requested that the existing contribution be clarified or referenced. Rather than replace one assertion with another, the disputed contents in this section could be greatly improved by demonstrating that it is not original research, but sourced from a reputable review or analysis which can form the basis of one perspective of the film's themes, or else the unsourced material should be removed. -Ticker  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.119.69.17 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a metaphor or something. Wildroot (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is a metaphor, and I don't think it's too presumptuous to draw that metaphor, but I feel that the wording of the sentence isn't clear enough.  "Jim's possibility and danger to escape..."?  This is simply grammatically incorrect. Wakata  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.114.228 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes

message: This film contains many alterations (from historical facts and from the book) and fictionalizations, one being the fact that the young boy sees with A-bomb explosion from China. I have read many different articles on the films inaccuracies and would think it would be of benefit to the read to have some of these highlighted... thoughts? --Jason Gaudet (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on historical accuracy can indicate aspects of the production where errors were made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish you good luck, just remember Wikipedia's policy on citing sources. I'll admit to screwing up sometimes. I always wanted to get around to something like this, but I was lazy. I intend to read J. G. Ballard's sometime in June. Should be fun and interesting. Wildroot (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical alterations & accuracy 

message: After struggling with the inconsistencies in citations and references in this article, mainly in trying to reconcile dates, a mix of style guides, use of templates and template errors, I have a sandbox project that has reworked all the cites and refs. See: Sandbox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Always glad to have fellow editors help me out [thumbs up]. Wildroot (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I think that Lughua may be the facility that Jamie & Basie are taken to immediately following their capture, where they await transport to Soochow Creek outside the city. When I looked at the coordinates on Google Earth they showed a location w/in the city of Shanghai but wouldn't the air base & the camp be well out of the city limits? 
Tommyt (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both Jim and Basie are transferred to Soochow Creek Internment Camp shortly after Lunghua. I added that detail, but it was removed as being "unnecessary". Whoever edits this page needs to watch the movie again. Donniewan75 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edits because you added a great deal of detail to the plot, not simply mention of Suzhou Creek.  You also misspelled the name.  It is now fixed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for re-adding that. I spelled the camp's name "Soochow", because that's how it's spelled in the film during an establishing shot of the camp shortly after Jim and Basie were transferred. The prisoners probably Anglicized the original "Suzhou" or it was an unintentional mistake made by the filmmakers.Donniewan75 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some kind of parenthetical comment about the misspelling might be appropriate, if a source can be found.  However the "note" I just removed is not appropriate because it offers an editor's speculation in the place of a source. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with this--"Soochow" is not a misspelling, but instead the prevailing romanization of the time rendered the name "Suzhou Creek" as "Soochow Creek".  Because it is (1) the proper name of the camp and (2) the way the name appears in the movie, the name should be rendered "Soochow Creek" for the same reason that "Lunghua" is rendered as it is instead of "Longhua" as the modern romanization would render it.  It's just like how the official english name of "Suzhou" University is the "incorrect" Soochow University.  Mingjai (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunghua?? 

message: There may be a number of films similar to this. But in the case of Empire of the Sun, this may raise a great deal of questions to some. In other words, it's pretty hard to believe how such a state-of-the-art film only generated a small revenue, considering other movies around its time made money that are off the charts. Therefore, I figure this needs to be explained in the article. 210.4.121.23 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really doesn't.  Some movies do not find an audience, and it is not for us to speculate as to why that is. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small revenue 

message: I am aware that phrases like "an American film" are commonly used on Wikipedia to mean something that is more or less short for "a movie made by American film-makers" etc.  For this film, how-ever,  it is confusing, since the modifier "coming-of-age" is inserted, making it sound like it is a movie about either an American child or at least a child in America.  Unless one knows about Ballard -- and even then only when one learns that the film is sort of autobiographical -- the misperception is hard to shake.  Can't we change this? Kdammers (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't perceive that confusion, but I have no problem with American being removed.  In general, I think it is unnecessary in the lede.  Coming-of-age war film is an accurate description. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading/ambiguous lede 

message: In regard to the current state of the references, is there any reason the two "notes" can't be converted into regular references?  Is there some reason they need to be set apart as they are now?  Second, the formatting of the bibliography needs to be fixed as the formatting currently italicizes everything, which is not appropriate.  Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the current formatting style, so I am not comfortable attempting to alter it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formatting 

message: It is clear to me that Spielberg's intended implication at the end of the movie is that the boy is blind.  He witnessed the Hiroshima explosion, and suffered flash blindness as a result.  Here are the following points:
--He had been riding his bicycle inside the building, but moved outdoors into a large empty space, and only rode in circles, and failed to see the American soldiers until he literally ran into them, because of his failing eyesight.
--When his parents appear in the holding center, he cannot see them, although he appears to be looking at them.  There are prominent flash burn marks around his eyes.  He does not appear to recognize his parents until he hears their voices, then has to trace his mother's face to be sure that it's her.
How obvious can you be?
jaknouse (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie's End 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Empire of the Sun (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966149,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124174439/http://www.goldenglobes.org:80/browse/year/1987 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1987
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Empire of the Sun (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C966149%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408200704/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1980-1989/60nominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1980-1989/60nominees.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Empire of the Sun (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913060828/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/christian_bale_biog.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/christian_bale_biog.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124081737/http://aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr271106.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr271106.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apologies if this is in the wrong place or not the way things are usually done. I am very new to this!
I made a recent edit, which I think bears further scrutiny. As it stands, the passage does not form a logically coherent sentence. Whilst the film can be called "a visual splendor", it does not make sense to call the film "a heroic adventurousness" or "an immense scope". It does however make sense to say that the film possesses any of these three things.
You are absolutely right to note that the proposed change alters the meaning of the sentence, but I believe it actually brings the meaning closer in line with what is written in the source material, where Maslin describes these as qualities Spielberg gives to the film.
Again, I'm sorry if this isn't procedure for discussing proposed changes. Please let me know if I should be doing things differently!
Regards, Utterly Ineffable (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the perfect place to discuss changes. I’ll review it in more context later. ~ RhinosF1(Chat) / (Contribs) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  ~ RhinosF1(Chat) / (Contribs) 06:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response / Maslin / Gramatical correction 

message: I disagree with the plot point that the garrison troops attack the infirmary in reprisal for the air raid. I know this is what Rawlins says in the movie, but the character is ignorant of the rationale. Bomb shocks break windows and create flying shards of glass. Intact windows reflect light and help bombers to line up their targets. In an air-raid, the lights should be doused. The garrison action to proactively break all those windows that are going to get broken regardless and to reduce night-time illumination are actually in the best interest of everyone at the camp, British and otherwise. Rawlins misunderstands and tries to stop the sergeant. Jamie interprets him correctly and joins in breaking the windows. 70.51.89.9 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Rawlins and Infirmary 

message: The redirect Empire of the Sun (film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 00:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Empire of the Sun (film]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]