Talk:Gattaca

NASA "Worst Films" list

In January 2011, NASA published a list with the most and least plausible science fiction films, with Gattaca earning the first position as the most "realistic" among them.

I removed this 'fact' as this has it, in reality, was a misquote and indeed not true. 170.201.172.68 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This story was first published with a detailed list in the Times[1]. Since it's subscription required content, I used a readily available source from the Toronto Sun. So unless it's been proven false by a reliable source, I'm restoring the text for now. - Artoasis (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll restore it myself. --Loremaster (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If anyone is interested in the list, check out the screenshot here [2]. It's not posted by me, so it could be deleted at any point, :) - Artoasis (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

According to a blogpost of The Planetary Society, NASA's list of the worst sci-fi movies ever made was “a case of spectacularly bad reporting” (See A Worldwide Game of "Telephone" Distorts NASA Meeting ) Therefore, mention of it was deleted from the Gattaca article and should not be restored. --Loremaster (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I was wondering why NASA would provide such a list to a Times reporter. Amusing read nonetheless. - Artoasis (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

on "Critical Reception"

I do not dispute point #1 that astronauts should be screened for safety-relevant factors, such as known (not pre-disposition) for heart disease. However I will dispute point #2 (insurance propensity rules) and #3 (genetic privacy laws). See the article for details. Under #2 I would dispute that "enhancement is not available". In some cases, that is true, by today's standard. But I will cite an example where human growth hormone can overcome a genenic condition of dwarfism. There may be others, and technology does advance. The movie was not set in a specific time period, so I would argue that point #2 is not valid in context to this movie. As for #3, there are perfectly good points for generating such laws, but the movie also presents a futuristic scenario whereby such laws do not apply. Furthermore, DNA testing is commonly done today for foresics, so I fail to see the point. See Biometric identification for am an example of using such methods as a means of access control. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Gattaca article not debating about whether or not a reliable source's opinion is valid. --Loremaster (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Human Spirit

"There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit."[3] is the official tagline of the film. Also, I personally think this is the most eloquent tagline of this film (there are 5 more). Anyhow, since this is the official theme, this term should be the one to be used to describe the film. Vapour (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Where and how exactly? --Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is in my first comment. Vapour (talk)

Please review WP:RS/IMDB and WP:TAGLINE. That simply is not good enough. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. I find that to be the weakest of the taglines, and the theme of destiny (genetics, etc) is explicitly mentioned by the sources. Of course, if Vapour wants to start a paragraph about the human spirit in the theme section, based on good sources, I will be happy to change my mind. Generally, we don't edit film articles based on taglines, but they can help point us in the right direction. Do we have sources that mention the human spirit as a theme? Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple google search indicate that "human spirit" tagline is the one which is most "popular". Still, whether the tagline is or isn't the strongest or weakest of tagline is a matter of personal opinion. That is why I used the word "anyhow" in the subsequent comment. What count is whether the term "human spirit" (or "destiny") can be verified and by what sources it is verified.

As of "we don't edit film articles based on taglines", that is your personal opinion. Taglines, especially famous ones are refereed in film reviews numerous time. The dictionary definition of tagline is "slogan" or "catchphrase". Whether the term "human spirit" is theme or slogan is semantic. Moreover, tagline is chosen by the people who made the film.

Please find the source for the term "destiny", preferably sourced to the people who made the film. In such case, both destiny and human spirit belong to the intro as official theme/slogan. If the term "destiny" can only be sourced to outside film critics, then the term destiny belong to "Reception" section. Vapour (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Simple google search" is not the appropriate response when you are asked for sources supporting "human spirit". A tagline that shows up in a Google search is not a reliable source. Asking me to provide you with sources about destiny, tells me you haven't done the most basic research on this topic. Virtually all of the best sources on this subject discuss genetic determinism, the idea (however inaccurate and/or controversial it may be) that "biology is destiny"—the primary theme of the film. For further guidance on this issue, please review WP:TAGLINE. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas. --Loremaster (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah do you not read my whole comments? Firstly, I have provided the source for the human spirit tagline in the first comment. But if you can't bother to read, here is another one. Here[4] and one more here[5]. Secondly, the point I was trying to make was that whether you who think this tag line is the weakest or me and majority in internet who think otherwise are not relevant. If all you can find for the sources for the term "destiny" is from film critics and other third party sources, then please feel free to add the term with specific attribution that it is a third party opinions. But please leave the official tagline/slogan/catchphrase/theme of the film alone. Vapour(talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can read just fine, and I pointed you to WP:RS/IMDB and WP:TAGLINE. Your sources, putting aside whether they are reliable or not, are primary, not secondary. If you want to add content that is based on an observation or critical commentary about the film, you will need to refer to secondary not primary sources. There appears to be confusion on your part on how we use sources and how we represent taglines. You may want to start an RFC or take this to the film project because I am evidently not going to change your mind. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

" Exceptions may include famous taglines". [6]One academic book even state "A central message of the film is that 'there is no gene for the human spirit'". Vapour (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And those alleged exceptions require reliable sources demonstrating their significance. This is not a famous tagline and is mostly irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

These are from Google scholars. They are academic papers and books. Here are another one. "Quoting the concluding message of the film GATTACA—"there is no gene for the human spirit"", or "The film's final message is that there is no gene for the human spirit". All of these are in the link I provided. Also, this particular tag line is sometimes refered as "THE tagline" in some of these sources, one article referring it as "subtitle". Also, this debate is not just about the term "human spirit" but whether the term "destiny" is an appropriate term to replace the former one. For this, you so far provided very little. Vapour (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please name these scholars. When you're finished, please quote them and review their use as reliable sources. Searching by keyword is fun, but you need to learn how to evaluate a source for reliability. Simply pointing me to a search result isn't how we cite sources. Chose one and name it here. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to provide these multitude of academic sources when the time come to put "the human spirit" in the article. Until then, please feel free to make few clicks and confirm that these academic source indeed exist. If you missed it the last time, here[7] Also, I eagerly wait your side to provide source for the term "destiny". So far, I haven't seen even one from you. Vapour (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The way things work on Wikipedia is that you discuss substantial changes here on the talk page before making them, once consensus has been acheived, you supply full citations when adding information in the article itself. --Loremaster (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Vapouor, we don't provide links to Google searches as examples of reliable sources. I looked at your link and saw unreliable and contradictory material. If you want to pick one or two simply by giving URL's to each individual source you want to use, I'll evaluate it here for reliability. Keep in mind, you need to compare the sources that say what you want them to say with the sources that don't. The link to the search result you provided tells me you didn't read it very carefully. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you misunderstood. Vapour was referring to (presumably) RS found on Google Scholar, i.e. academic and often peer-reviewed publications. Not to unspecified "scholars" found on a normal "Google [search]". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: On the older, original DVD version, Uma Thurman mentions the human spirit in her interpretation of the film, and that should be added to the cast section. I'll keep looking for more. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

physical, intellectual and psychological dysfunction and under-performance

I don't quite understand why these three have to be edited out. Physical dysfunction would cover the illness and disease and intellectual dysfuntion is much broader, general, and hence more appopriate term than educational one in my opinion. Lastly, psychological dysfunction is one of few conditions nurse mentioned when Vincent was born. Vapour (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the most important points; wordy paraphrasing is discouraged. If you want to point me to some sources on this aspect of the film, I am amenable to changing my position. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas. --Loremaster (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, in that case, why not get it directly from the source. high probability of neurological disorder, manic depression, attention disorder, heart disorder and expected life expectancy of 30 years. [8]. Vapour (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't use personal interpretations of primary sources. Please try to familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:V. I'm certainly willing to make whatever changes you propose as long as you have reliable sources to support them, however, in this instance, we should stick to the sources. I have no objection to expanding the body, but the lead should stick to the main points. It already says "considered more susceptible to disease, educational dysfunction and shorter lifespans", which can probably be reduced even more, not expanded. Genetic disorder works just fine. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How the direct reference from the film could be seen as "personal interpretation" is beyond me. Also, wasn't your "educational dysfunction" a personal interpretation of "attention deficit disorder"? And Vincent is likely to develop heart condition and he is not "susceptible to disease". Please familarise yourself with the film. Vapour (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't interpret primary sources. Find reliable sources to support your proposed content. I'm all in favor of removing it entirely as unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)