Talk:The Island (2005 film)

Plot errors

The Plot described in this stub is incorrect. someone should address that. I would, but unfortunately I don't have the patience for that.

There you go. I went by my memory of the original Parts, so there's a chance it's a wee bit off. But it's at least more accurate than it used to be.--RiffRaff1138 01:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Remake

There probably ought to be some mention of the fact that this is not an official re-make: the writing credits do not acknowledge any of the creative team from "Clonus". i.e. it's a ripoff job. Skyraider 5 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

The movie isn't an unoffical remake or a rip-off job at all. -Acjelen 01:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.--RiffRaff1138 01:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Acjelen, have you seen both films? It's pretty blatant. 24.195.22.63 16:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So I watched Parts: the Clonus Horror the other night (thanks Netflix!). There are many disturbing similarities to The Island in the first act, though some of the differences are notable. Nonetheless, in the second and third acts the two movies are completely different. I admit that the premise of the two films seem to be the same, the plot, tone, production, and other elements are very different. -Acjelen 18:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I can tell you as a professional science-fiction writer that the things the two movies have in common are pretty much exactly what any pulp writer would do with the premise "clone escapes from organ farm" (and that premise occurred to a thousand writers as soon as human cloning began to seem possible) -- it's completely possible for The Island to have been generated by someone who had never seen Clonus. It would also have been possible, early enough in the process, to snag the remake rights to Clonus for peanuts or to accentuate the differences between them to eliminate any possibility of a lawsuit. Of course, human stupidity is limitless, and plagiarism can't be ruled out. But the similar story elements are all taken completely off the shelf from earlier stories. Nor can plagiarism be assumed from the suit settlement. Hollywood plagiarism settlements are never a matter of principle, just a judgment of whether settling is cheaper than rolling the dice with a jury of non-writers. 209.181.57.144 (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism and references to other films

This section, I feel, does not meet the standard of NPOV, especially with claims like this:

Towards the end of the movie there is to be a mass-execution of "defective" products. They are put into a large room marked "incinerator" and made to burn. This is a poignant and unavoidable reference to the Holocaust and the cremation of "defective" human beings.

As such, it is not an uncredited remake or a pure derivative work. Aside from these interesting elements, the utter destruction of the car-chases, the high-fall and the incinerator scene combined with the bright daylight cinematography and social satire stand out as unique to this misunderstood film.

The clones are older in Clonus, the escaped clone is befriended and aided in Clonus and most of satirical elements in the Island are not present in Clonus. Cinematically, there is no resemblence between the two.

The use of descriptors like "poignant" and "misunderstood" make it obvious this is not NPOV. I would also like to know exactly what is meant by "Cinematically, there is no resemblence [sic] between the two." Satan Rides a Bike 09:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I wrote the bit about "misunderstood", but that's not NPOV or orig. research. It am simply in agreement with the plethora of reviews on rottentomatoes.com etc. which say as much. I even wasted $20 on Clonus. "Cinematically" was intended to point out that there isn't any CGI, very few stunts, and nothing really of note from a movie-making standpoint that is in Clonus. It is unfortunate that the critics and some viewers and wikipedia contributors did not see everything Michael Bay tried to include. Is he to blame? I don't know. This article can mitigate to an extent, but I agree with Bay, the marketting had something to do with it. The movie did well in Korea, one of the biggest grossers of all time there. These are pretty much just facts you can check just by watching the movie and reading the reviews and this article. Jok2000 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but those four points used to justify the fact that The Island is in no way ripped off from Clonus are far too tenuous. Yes, it should be acknowledged that there are similarites between the two film and any controversy that may have arisen because of this, but leave it at that. --86.29.82.27 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the whole section should be removed and these bits moved into the controvery section (or perhaps a merge should happen in the other direction). --Edwin Herdman 10:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Product placement

While watching the movie, I assumed the product placement was overdone on purpose. Isn't the movie saying that we are all merely bodies for work and control and consumption. -Acjelen 01:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So they're criticizing runaway commercialism by engaging in it? Skyraider 21:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sitting in the cinema, I wondered why the companies agreed to participate it was so obscene. -Acjelen 02:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I included a link to an article that explained the extensive product placement. Obviously, the companies pay to have their brand displayed- this source of income was needed to get the film financed.- Marikology

Spoilers

The section below was above the spolier notice, and it's rather spoilery... I was tryign to figure out where to merge it, and then thought it was somewhat of a trivial point to be included in the main article at all. If someone puts it back, though, please put it back in below the spoiler notice. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Names of the "products"

The "products'" names are determined by three factors; ex. Jordan Two-Delta

• Jordan : The last name of their "sponsor".
• Two: The geographic area that the "sponsor" lives in.
• Delta: The generation the products were manufactured.

If true, should go in main article. 220.245.180.130 06:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be correct.

Logan's Run

Did someone else find an influence of Logan's Run? --Error 03:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The influence of Logan's Run is clear. However, in Logan's Run, sex is free, while the clones are prevented from even touching each other. Logan's Run drew on Baby Boomers fear of growing old (or, rather, turning 30), while the The Island draws on our fear of being nothing but soulless cogs, only meat and/or consumers. At the end of both movies, the people are brought out into the light and open and the truth is revealed to them. -Acjelen 03:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well observed. --Error 05:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Never Let me Go

Anyone else notice that Never let me go by British author Kazuo Ishiguro, even though it was published in the same year as the film was released, is extremely close in plot? Milliped 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Merck

Is the connection Merrick - Merck anything more than original research? For that matter, Joseph Merrick is the Elephant-Man. And David Merrick was not above lying to promote his business. --Error 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

122,000,000 for a budget!!!???

African-Utopian?

Starkweather is described as "a tall and muscular African-American."

I haven't seen the movie, but based on the plot description in this article, America has nothing to do with the movie. Perhaps he should be labeled "a tall and muscular African-Utopian."

Or maybe we should just say he's black.

Or how about disposing with labels altogether? Wasn't that Dr. King's goal--that people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?

Now we're getting ridiculous. I suppose I shouldn't note a person is a woman, or if they have blonde hair. Judge is determining worth. Categorization is not a matter of worth. Whether or not a person assigns a different worth to a different category is independent of category. All you're doing is trying to circumnavigate racism by acting naive. I suppose if your child is kidnapped by a white guy, you'll make sure to describe the person as kind, stoic, but somewhat reckless.

Sorry to bring "politics" into this, but calling him an "African-American" in this context seems silly to me...

cluth 06:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that I saw the movie on the airplane ride home from L.A. last week. I think my original point is still valid... cluth 10:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

True, I'll remove it. --Viriditas 10:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

America does have to do with the story, it is clear they are in America when Lincoln points to an American highway sign after they escape. Also an American map is used in the film. Minami-chan 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The WHOLE MOVIE is based in America. The "utopian" complex is in an old nuclear missile silo in Nevada. From there, they go to Los Angeles, etc. Calling him "African-American" also lends insight into the fact that there is still an outside world, thus assisting in Lincon Six Echo's doubts about everything. --CanesOL79 20:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In a scene that follows the lead characters in L.A., the observant movie watcher can see an enormous advertisement the scales a tall building; the advertisement is Michael Clark Duncan dressed as an athlete (probably American Football). Still, were it not for Clark's American accent, Cluth would have a valid point. --Otheus (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a plot hole

User:129.120.168.146 added a section called plot holes:

The introduction of Sarah Jordan's child is a stark contrast to the idea that all of the clones' lives being ended is the result of selfish indulgence by their sponsors. Sarah Jordan was injured through no fault of her own (that we are told) and in critical condition, and would need her clone to save her life. While the child looking at the video screen and recognizing Jordan's face is a poignant moment, the fallout to Sarah Jordan's assured death is never explained, and the orphaning of an innocent child by Jordan Two-Delta's actions is conveniently ignored.

I think this is POV, it might be possible to rewrite it NPOV, but it isn't a plot hole, so I've removed it from the article. It isn't unusual for fiction to leave parts of the story unexplained. Edward 10:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is more in line with insurance policies. You never know when you need it. And a glance at the other clones' stories, some of them have been in the "colony" for quite a long time. Why they haven't been picked for the "lottery" may be because there is no need for their parts yet. So, this suggests that some of the clones are made for eventualities. --Destron Commander 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly some of the clones are used as more convenient ways to have children. I understand the article suggests that Jordan was a skin replacement, with her usefulness after the car crash being a convenient but unplanned benefit. I think the whole theme of the movie is that people, despite their origins, aren't just unwilling replacement parts for other people and the fact that Jordan isn't cut up and used to try to fix someone who may die anyway (this is explained as the service the clients pay for by Merrick) is down to the fact that she has her own life to live, regardless of accidents that occur outside of her control.

I am unsure plot holes (really "it bugs me") has much of a place in an encyclopedic article in general - tvtropes.org might be better for that - unless it's something really well known, widely discussed and is part of the surrounding context of the movie.86.148.97.82 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Scientific Accuracies and Inaccuracies

It's listed as a scientific inaccuracy that a full human clone would begin life in the form of a newborn baby, and not a middle-aged adult. This is true, however, I think the writers cleverly got around this by introducing those breast-implantesque sacs that contained-- hell, I duhhno, some sort of mutant embryo. I think if a clone were created from scratch, then they would be a newborn baby, but if half the human is already built before the sponsor's DNA is implimented then couldn't it be deemed possible (for the sake of science-fiction) that clones could be birthed as adults? I don't think it's an inaccuracy because they did throw in a psuedo-scientific explination that made sense. --Feb 16, 2005

Someone added a massive section in Scientific Accuracies and Inaccuracies that I think should be rewritten. It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, even though it does make some interesting points. Whoever feels the urge to reword that portion of the article, it is the first large paragraph. --Smell? 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole section reads like a copyvio, especially this:

"When Sean Bean's character, Dr. Merrick, suggests that he was a year away from curing childhood leukemia, our truth sensors should be peaked"

--70.181.28.85 23:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article contains content that conflicts with the Dolly the sheep wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep#Death "On February 14, 2003 it was announced that Dolly had a progressive lung disease. A necropsy confirmed she had sheep pulmonary adenomatosis, a fairly common disease of sheep. Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly being a clone, and that other sheep on the farm had similar ailments. Such lung diseases are especially a danger for sheep kept indoors, as Dolly had to be for security reasons." --User ID: 214405 24:44, 28 January 2006

Plot summary or detailed transcription?

I think that this plot is too detailed. Grammar can be improved and the story can be narrated without getting into such minor situations as the food they had or the bathingsuit they were wearing. The effort is to be appreciated though. I would do it myself if had the time, I´ll see what I can do.Laurentis 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)laurentis

I'm going to be editing the plot; it is most certainly far too detailed for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I plan on improving the article to satisfy myself. It is currently, and unforunately, full of unnecessary detail, useless external links, terrible grammar, and questionable context. Other than that, I believe the editors who created the article did a decent job, as it explains the film's North American appeal as a whole. –Cruz AFade ^{(Speak about it} | ^{How many?)} 16:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been framed so I can no longer apply the copy-edit of the article I was hoping for. 64.231.118.31 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing some tinkering to the plot, not changing a lot, but I agree it is too detailed and grammar could be improved.Marikology 05:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Also, I removed some details I'm usure about- I'm pretty sure Tom Lincoln was dying of some sexually-transmitted disease, not liver failure as stated in the original. Also, the article says at the beginning the facility was in Arizona, but at the end says Nevada. But it's 1 AM and I'm not going downstairs to get my dvd and check, lol, so feel free to edit in these details. Marikology 06:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Does one know where the film began shooting? I had assumed Los Angeles, but I don't think I'm right. Any knowledge on this topic? –Cruz Along ^{(Speak about it | How many?)} 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A portion of the film was shot in Los Angeles. I apologize for not being clear enough earlier. Does anyone know if the film was shot anywhere else as well? –Cruz Along ^{(Speak about it | How many?)} 18:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It began shooting in Detroit, Michigan. The first shooting day was October 28, 2004. - DoubleCross 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the plot is too lengthy for an encyclopedic entry about The Island. It needs to be shortened to two or three paragraphs. --Erik 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened the plot as best as possible, although I'm sure it could be reduced further. I basically rewrote the plot to contain the essential information of the storyline. Things like Lincoln and Jordan making love, details of them escaping from the mercenaries, and other tidbits were deleted. --Erik 00:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Brave New World

Why isn't Huxley's Brave New World mentioned anywhere in this article? After watching this movie for a few minutes I immediately thought of that book. Recall how the clones have Epilon, Delta, etc in their names - similar to the caste system in BNW. Scott 110 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus Huxley's last novel about a utopia is called . . . The Island !!! 76.105.183.62 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But they don't refer to castes. You might as well ask if the Greeks are mentioned because they had an alphabet that had epsilon, delta etc. The similarities - the people are clones, for god's sake - run deeper than the letter system in their names.

Why IS Huxley's Brave New World now mentioned here? It's listed under the section entitled "Controversies," though it makes no reference to any actual controversy. Pointing out that in the wikipedier's opinion they are similar without any citations to this being observed somewhere also sounds like original research. I am removing this paragraph. --Techgeist (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex?

If the clones aren't aware of sex, then how did Lima One-Alpha become pregnant?

Ebb 20:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would ASSUME she was fertilized by the husband of her sponsor, probably injected her (I know that's not the correct terminology but you know what I mean) with or without her consent (a character referenced that some of the people are 'breeders'). I assumed this lady was cloned so she could have the child for the sponsor and her husband. She almost certainly did not have sex with her sponsors husband :) Oreo man 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

removed text

I removed the following text:

"In a seperate room, Lincoln and Jordan find they are attracted to one another. Jordan starts to rub Lincoln's genitals faster and faster and he is excited from this. Lincoln grabs her breasts and this sparks a memory, the dream that is seen at the beginning where he sees a busty, beautiful, blond woman. This love scene was actually not censored in the deleted scenes. It was removed from the original screen version but was later put into the deleted scenes section of the DVD. "

Part of this was added by someone who also changed the year to 5001, so I think it's made up. S Sepp 08:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw the movie, there wasn't any genital rubbing. There was the sex scene and sexual attraction, but it was more of a curtain over the camera affair JayKeaton 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A Comprehensive Futuristic Vehicle List

I think a comprehensive list of the futuristic elements of this movie and others with an array of images should be attached. The jet-bike would be an especially gnarly feature and it is the primary reason I wrote this.

Did anyone else find it odd that in 2019, most of the people are still driving vehicle models that were produce from around '05-'07? There are relatively few futuristic vehicles compared to the ones produced in the early 21st century.

Also, the film is not set in 2019, as one character makes reference to the 'genetics laws of 2050'.

He actually says, "...and in complience with the eugentic laws of two-thousand and fifteen(2050)..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taipan198 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought he said 2015, not 50 - did you get that from the closed-captioning? I thought there were plenty of futuristic vehicles: Lincoln's Cadillac Cien concept car with its scissor doors, the police cars, Laurent's Hummers, the Mack truck hauling the train axles, Bugatti Veyron, a Lexus LF concept car, McCord's SSR is still pretty radical looking, hover trains, Eurocopter whisper helpicopters are pretty cutting edge right now, as is the 118 WallyPower boat. We're not talking decades into the future. There are plenty of 90's automobiles on the road today. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought he said "2050," which would fit better with the masively in-place mass transportation but poorly with the cars, clothes etc. I tried to check in the on-line scripts, but they are not consistent in various areas and I could not find the passage in any of them. Wheredoes the claim for 2019 come from? 211.225.34.164 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find a source for the year, either (same problem as IP 211). I don't have the DVD so I can't check closed captioning either. I make a tweak to the plot to have a generic "future" phrasing until we can find something. Otherwise it's edit war of doom. Millahnna (talk)

According to a poster on IMDB, his DVD subtitles say it's the Eugenics Laws of 2015 and the film is set in 2019. Can anyone verify? Millahnna (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Every single review (major and minor) that mentions the year in this film says 2019. Still we might be better off going with "near future" since that's more informative as to the setting and it's likely to continue to create an edit war. Millahnna (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the back description of the German DVD claims it plays in the "middle of the 21st century". But I'm also sure that the year 2019 is explicitly mentioned in the film. Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible plot hole

Bearing in mind that I've seen The Island only once (and then at the cinema), I could be wrong but I seem to remember that each clone's classification corresponds with his or her age. However, the use of the phonetic alphabet in this classification doesn't correspond with the age difference between Lincoln Six-Echo and Jordan Two-Delta. IIRC, Lincoln is stated as being older than Jordan yet the 'echo' part of his classification comes after 'delta'. Anyone able to clarify this? --86.29.82.27 16:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that even if this plot hole were true, it would be a valuable addition to this film article. The last few sections of this article need to be cleaned up and cited better. You could check about the classification plot hole at a place like Movie Mistakes. --Erik 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not a plothole. Later in the movie Merrick refers to generations after Lincoln Six-Echo as Foxtrot and some other -- OH wait you mean, you thought Lincoln was older than Jordan. No, I'm pretty sure Jordan was four years old and Lincoln was three. Never mind. 69.124.143.230 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In the elevator Gandu Three Echo asked Lincoln Six Echo how long had him been there and Lincoln replied THREE, which matches what McCord said later. But Gandu Three Echo, the same Echo generation, revealed that himself had been there SEVEN. Also Merrick mentioned that Gandu was one of the first of the Echo generation. So, even the same generations' age are not same. But the only person who told us the relationship between clone's classification and their age is McCord. So either he based on some information else or it's a plot hole, we don't know. --Mato Rei 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think the fact that Merrick tells Gandu about being "one of the first of the Echo generation" is a plot error (or a stupid mistake on Merrick's part), since the clones are not supposed to know about these generations... 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Scientific accuracies and inaccuracies section

I don't know, is it just me or does this section seem like its trying to write a paper on the inaccuracies of the film? It has a lot of loaded language and sounds like it's trying to prove a point of its own. Like Finally, a comment on aging and Dolly, the cloned sheep. and then rattles on about Dolly and aging and how that wouldn't be possible - yet ultimately admits the fact that the exact nature of aging today is unknown, and offers plausible explanations of its own. The whole premise of the movie is that it's in the future and possibly the process of aging is better known and able to be controlled. The point is it doesn't show whether or not the movie makes claims to science that in that modern world we have evidence to the contrary.

I'm not trying to defend the show or anything, I found a lot of the scientific aspects of the movie to be borderline -- but that's why I came to this article to look further into the accuracy of the movie. This section just feels like a college student's term paper, or something. I don't know, is anybody understanding what i'm trying to say? 69.124.143.230 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think that The Island is exactly a film that accurately reflects the times. I think that most, if not all, of the later sections could be purged, because it doesn't fit the encyclopedic format (at least, not from my standpoint). If you think the sections could be trimmed, I'm fine with that; cut down on anything that's not directly relevant to the film. --Erik 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Experiment by John Darnton

I've never seen this movie, but based on this summary and what people who have seen it have said, it sounds very similar to the novel The Experiment by John Darnton. Anybody with more knowledge care to comment? 70.16.57.154 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I haven't read The Experiment, skimming the reviews of it on Amazon.com indicates the only similarity is in that clones are being used for scientific purposes and that one has escaped only to confront its "sponsor". You can find similarities to these points in other popular novels and movies, including Destination: Void (1965) and Blade Runner (1982). The idea of clones being "property" and instrumental for scientific purposes can be traced at least to Herbert's Destination: Void. The setting of the movie -- including L.A. in 2019 -- comes straight out of Blade Runner. Two people escaping a post-apocalyptic utopia to find that the world is actually inhabitable comes from Logan's Run (1976). Compare that to 1999, when Darnton's novel came out, shortly after "Dolly the Sheep" was successfully cloned. --Otheus (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did the police car stop?

The police car with Lincoln and Jordan on board stoped in a crossroads just before the mercenary truck crashed it. I watched this sequence over and over again, still can't figure it out why the police car did that. It made itself a nice position to be crashed right in the center of the crossroads. It should not be because the traffic light. The light for its course cannot be seen but the light for the cross street is red. Besides, a Lexus CS from the movie Minority Report was just ahead of it and crossed the street. A screenshot here. It's an unimportant question anyway. --Mato Rei 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They stopped to make a left turn, which can require sitting in the middle of an intersection.

Political and religious symbolism

Did anyone else notice what seemed like some pretty heavy Christian right ideals being pushed in this movie? The unborn are people just like clones would be real people. The Ewan McGregor character at the end is going to die because "he had lots and lots of sex" outside of marriage. I don't know, I could be totally off here (especially since I haven't seen any other mention of this. But I am not making a value judgement one way or the other, just wondering if anyone else picked up on it.160.39.251.174 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

my man, thats just about any other movie in hollywood, nothing really new here. Movies in hollywood get made following a strict moral code, good vs bad always, and whats good or bad its always determined by the respective society. If bad people would always win in movies, chances are people wouldnt go to see them, and even when the "bad guy" wins, hes never really bad, otherwize the viewer wouldnt relate to him. And so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually, I think the anon might be on to something. I recall reading something about this when the film came out, and when I saw it in the theater, I immediately picked up on it. I'll do some research when I have time. —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the clones are not allowed to touch each other and have their sex drives programmed away. It also seems to cast people who support cloning in an incredibly evil light. The clones escaping at the end, and ascending a hill dressed in white is eerily baptist (i suppose)Lordofhyperspace (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln also somehow intuitively knows Latin, which christians often assume is the language of god. Lordofhyperspace (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are reading an awful lot into this. It's safe to say that Christian religions oppose cloning, as do many other religions and governments. But poetic justice for promiscuity, sexual abstinence, clothing colors, and knowledge of Latin seems like a stretch. As the first responder mentioned, these are themes in many dramas. And none of those ideas are unique to Christianity either. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with hoof here, if you want it to mean something you'll read into it. Latin isn't the language of God, it's the language of the Romans, they were pagan, what's the link here? It's in Lordofhyperspace's head. RealLincoln actually is going to die because he had lots of sex, but I don't think Michael Bay thinks that Africa with the Aids crisis is a pit of mortal evil. The reason the clones with the pods are like the unborn is that they are unborn, that's just how it is. If you want to see Christian ideas pushed into something you'll find them. Were they pushed into it? How could wikipedia possibly know that? We didn't make the movie.86.148.97.82 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Only twelve scripts in Hollywood?

That little piece of inside joshing about "only twelve scripts in Hollywood" in the trivia section is not backed up at all. I couldn't find it anywhere. Until someone backs it up with something I'm removing it.Funkbomb 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting trivia that can't be incorporated into the article is usually ok in my book, but just for the record, the reference that there are "only twelve scripts in Hollywood" is somewhat true; this is sometimes referred to as "plot patterns"; the number changes depending on who you talk to and which books you read, but there are indeed, a very limited number of script structures, and for obvious reasons: the connection that the editor draws between the references in the film is tenuous at best, and original research at worst, so I support the removal. —Viriditas | Talk 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Locations

Can we expand on film loctions? I am very interested in finding out where the car park the 2 clones run though before jumping on the Mack truck is. --Amckern (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Pending verification and assertion of notability, I have moved the trivia below to the talk page;

• Steve Buscemi and Ewan McGregor had previously worked together in Film.
• There is a scene where Jordan Two-Delta discovers a large print advertisement and television commercial that features her real-life double, Sarah Jordan. The advertisement shown is an actual ad for "Eternity Moment" that Scarlett Johansson did for Calvin Klein in 2004.
• In the film, Suzie (played by Shawnee Smith) is the wife of McCord (played by Steve Buscemi). This is the same woman that "Rockhound", from Armageddon (also played by Buscemi), was hitting on in a bar. Rockhound was looking at the woman's engagement ring, before announcing it was fake. Both films were directed by Michael Bay.
• Tom Lincoln's Cadillac in the film is the real-life Cadillac Cien concept car.
• Tom Lincoln's boat named the Renovatio in the film is the real-life 118 WallyPower luxury super-yacht.
• The futuristic red Lexus driven by Tom Cruise's character in the 2002 science fiction thriller Minority Report makes an appearance in the film. Several cars from that film are visible in the scenes set in Los Angeles.
• The cubist painting by Picasso hanging in Merrick's office is the "Femme assise (Jacqueline)" from 1962.
• Amtrak Released their new "wave" logo in the movie during the scene where they sit down in the passenger car
• In two scenes in the film, the Griffin PowerMate is used as a prop, acting as a control knob in the living quarters of Lincoln Six-Echo and Jordan Two-Delta.
• All clones speak English with American accents; whereas the sponsors speak English with various different accents. This is due to the fact the clones were created in an American scientific facility.

Alastairward (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wallypower 118 vs. 118 wallypower

According to the official web page http://www.wally.com/jumpch.asp?idChannel=44&idUser=0&attivo=2, the name of this yacht is "118 wallypower" and alternatively "118 WallyPower". This article states that the yacht is called "Wallypower 118", which should be changed IMHO. 195.212.29.187 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody seemed to care, I just changed "Wallypower 118" to "118 WallyPower" without waiting for a discussion about it. 84.184.208.213 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot and Plot summary

Okay, I just watched the film and tried to read the plot summary. The Plot is a little bit long here, and so I split it up into "Plot Summary" and "Plot Details". A plot summary should be a summary, so people, please keep it as tight as possible. Avoid (sub-) article creep!

Two points for discussion:

1. In the last paragraph, I mentioned Merrick's order to destroy the several product lines. This isn't really necessary. Any thoughts?
2. I make no mention of "Mac". Is he really an essential plot point?

--Otheus (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

update: Good work by User:Treybien to tighten up my plot summary, although a few of his changes are not in the flim version I saw. Further, I see no reason to delete the "detailed plot". The reference is the film, and consensus is allowed to summarize from the primary source. --Otheus (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

The "Detailed Plot Summary" section strikes me as completely unnecessary and a waste of space. The function of a plot section is simply to supply the basic outline of what happened, where, and to whom; if someone wants to know about every single scene, they can just see the movie. I would recommend that this section be deleted. Treybien 08:00, March 25, 2009 (talk)

I disagree. (1) People who visit Wikipedia may be interested in wanting to know plot details without taking the time to watch the film, or who cannot stomache such a gruesome film, or those simply doing research on the genre. (2) Further, we have detailed plot summaries of episodes of the Simpsons and South Park, and (3) such articles are frequently cited by the media (such as the Wall Street Journal). As a rebuttal to argument about "waste of space", disk space at Wikipedia is hardly a concern. --Otheus (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Treybien. This article needs serious cleanup, which means merging the two plot sections and keeping it short. Viriditas (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Treybien. --195.14.197.207 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy vs. Lawsuit sections

The Controversy section says:

Due to some points of similarity, some have accused the filmmakers of remaking the 1979 film, Parts: The Clonus Horror, without crediting that concept.[2] DreamWorks settled out of court for $1 million, the same amount the screenwriters were paid for the script.

The Lawsuit section says:

According to a 2007 interview with Clonus screenwriter Bob Sullivan, DreamWorks and Clonus' associates reached a seven-figure settlement on November 20, 2006, the specific terms of which are sealed.[9]

and the linked article doesn't clarify the amount either.

I think the $1 million needs to be cited, and the "specific terms of which are sealed" needs to be removed, or changed to say that's the official word, with a link to the same citation above. Basically, the two paragraphs are blatantly contradictory, and I don't have any way to tell which is true. Mattack (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am looking that up right now... Incidentially, this was not the only lawsuit!The Red Queen (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy & product placement

So a well meaning IP added a bit to the controversy section which I then "fixed" with refs from the relevant article, not realizing that the material was already present. I did some shuffling to account for this, which took far too many edits due to some serious reading failure on my part. If what I did sucks, feel free to revert back. But I do think having in all in one section like that makes more sense.

In doing all of this, I realized we have no source for the last paragraph in the section, related to the intended remake of Logan's Run. The writing for that bit feels really speculative on our part and I wanted to see what others thought before I just deleted it (I've done enough damage for one night).

Finally, I wanted to see what others thought about moving the Product placement section to Reaction or its Critical reception subsection. The nature of the text makes me think it would make more sense there. For that matter the controversy section might make more sense as a subsection of Reaction. Any thoughts before I just plow ahead? Millahnna (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I received no responses I went ahead and tried my ideas. Here's a list in case someone wants to revert and discuss:

• Removed Logan's Run paragraph from controversy - was purely speculative
• Moved controversy and product placement to be subsections of Reaction
  • Also removed subheading for product placement since it was primarily about reviewer reaction so it went well with Critical response. I'm not completely sold on leaving it that way since we don't have any other reviews in the section at the moment (just RT scores).
• Rearranged order of whole page so that it goes plot, cast, filming, reaction - based on memory of other film articles and sequence of events, that seems about right.

Questions, comments, suggestions, rabid hatred of everything I did? Millahnna (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

plot issues

Does the film take place in 2019? I remember Dr. Merrick (played by Sean Bean) citing ethical/cloning laws of 2050 when he is selling the "product" to prospecting buyers.

So which is it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All the sources I can find say 2019. I haven't seen it for a while so I'll give it another viewing in the net few days to verify. Millahnna (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Box Office

I removed "but saw steadily diminishing domestic revenue during its seven week release period" under the Box office section. That is the pattern for nearly every wide-release movie in history and therefore does not deserve to be noted, nor does it relay anything unique to how it was a box office disappointment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.248.89 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Tessa Dick quote

If anyone is able to find a web-based copy of the Tessa Dick blog post that is referred to in this article, please include it as a citation and remove my explanatory text. It seems to have disappeared from the web (maybe for legal reasons?).--Soulparadox 07:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Total gross

The page claims that the movie grossed 36 million U.S. and 127 million overseas for a total of 162 million worldwide. But 127 + 36 = 163! I do not know what the numbers are, though, so I cannot fix the faulty math. This is a relatively small problem, but it looks unprofessional, so perhaps could something be done about it?65.94.103.243 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

More plagiarisms

It could be pointed out that the film bears further obvious similarities with the films Coma (1977) and Logan's run (1976). --2003:71:4E6A:C949:199B:3FC4:AB38:2690 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It could, but it would be original research unless reliable sources have noted the similarities. DonIago (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And in any event, these common plot devices would not be "plagiarisms." Even if Coma had been the first story to suggest illegal organ farming (it wasn't) or Logan's Run had been the first in which everyone lives in a bubble falsely thinking the world destroyed (not even close to the first), general plot devices like that (which, unlike exact wordings of a certain length, two or more writers might easily come up with independently, or choose to use in a new way) are considered in the public domain in fiction. Many, many stories are made up from bits and pieces of previous stories. Peace be on Tessa Dick, but PDK's entire body of work came, not from imagining things previously unimagined, but from re-using oft-explored pulp sf story devices in creative new ways. Every lawsuit that seeks to widen the scope of plagiarism from close copying of words to reworking of general ideas is very harmful to fiction--and would have outlawed, for instance, more than half the works of Shakespeare.

Mandrakos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Shots reused

Some footage from this film was later reused by Bay in Transformers 3.[1] Not sure if it is worth mention in the article, or where it would fit, but maybe someone else can add it? -- 109.79.81.27 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

To me, it seems like trivia unless more than one source has mentioned it. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)