Talk:12 Monkeys

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Ahrens, Jörn (2009). "How to Save the Unsaved World? Transforming the Self in The Matrix, The Terminator, and 12 Monkeys". In Hart, Kylo-Patrick R.; Holba, Annette M. (eds.). Media and the Apocalypse. Peter Lang Publishing. pp. 53–66. ISBN 1433104199.
• Devlin, William J. (2007). "Some Paradoxes of Time Travel in The Terminator and 12 Monkeys". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 103–118. ISBN 0813124727.
• Gilmore, Richard Allen (2005). "Oedipus Techs: Time Travel as Redemption in The Terminator and 12 Monkeys". Doing Philosophy At The Movies. State University of New York Press. pp. 33–56. ISBN 0791463915.
• Herz, Marion (2006). "Prime Time Terror: The Case of La Jetée and 12 Monkeys". In Kavoori, Anandam P.; Fraley, Todd (eds.). Media, Terrorism, and Theory: A Reader. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742536300.
• Laytham, Brent D. (2006). "Time for Hope: The Sixth Sense, American Beauty, Memento, and Twelve Monkeys". In Griesinger, Emily; Eaton, Mark (eds.). The Gift of Story: Narrating Hope in a Postmodern World. Baylor University Press. pp. 69–84. ISBN 1932792473.
• McCabe, Bob (1999). "Twelve Monkeys". Dark Knights and Holy Fools: The Art and Films of Terry Gilliam. Universe. pp. 160–171. ISBN 0789302659.
• Rascaroli, Laura (2004). "Time Travel and Spectatorship in 12 Monkeys and Strange Days". In Rickman, Gregg (ed.). The Science Fiction Film Reader. Limelight Editions. pp. 355–368. ISBN 0879109947.
• Wood, Aylish (2002). "Resistance is futile?". Technoscience In Contemporary American Film: Beyond Science Fiction. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719057736.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:12 Monkeys/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Lead, "Jeffrey Goines (Pitt), the insane son of a famous scientist and virus expert", you might want to remove "famous", per here and because there is no mention that Goines is son of a "famous" scientist. In the Themes section, shouldn't "Twelve Monkeys" be "12 Monkeys"?

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Plot, link "red herring" and "David Morse" to their correspondence articles. Same section, the hyphens needs to be dashes. Do the same in the Casting section. In the Development section, "Universal's production of Waterworld resulted into various cost overruns" ---> "Universal's production of Waterworld (1995) resulted into various cost overruns", so that it can provide context for the reader. I would do the same for this ---> "By the time of 12 Monkeys' release, however, Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles, Legends of the Fall, and Seven had been released", sentence. In the Casting section, it would be best if "Jeff Bridges" was linked once. Same section, "somebody who is strong and dangerous but also vulnerable", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here. In the Critical analysis section, "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic" don't need to be italicized.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The article has a dead link, per here.

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I have addressed the concerns and I think the article is ready. Peace. Wildroot (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yup, check on all of the above. Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) Peace to you as well, my friend. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding GA's comment, "shouldn't "Twelve Monkeys" be "12 Monkeys"?"

I'm wondering how to handle that myself. I just checked my copy of the film, and the opening title is "Twelve Monkeys", but promotional content and packaging uses "12 Monkeys".

On one hand, I would normally use the title as used in the film as the primary source. However, the promotional use of the digits instead of spelling out the number is so overwhelming in this particular case that using "Twelve" would lead to considerable confusion, especially with people who are familiar with only the promotional material and not with the actual film.

Kid Bugs (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above comments about 'Twelve Monkeys' versus '12 Monkeys'. There seems to be an interesting confusion about the actual title, and although it is confidently asserted further down this page that the official title is '12 Monkeys' no authoritative source is stated, while the evidence for 'Twelve Monkeys' appears strong. The film's opening title (on VHS and DVD released in the UK) clearly states 'Twelve Monkeys'; the credits refer to the 'Twelve Monkeys Theme'; and 'Twelve Monkeys Productions' is identified as the author for purposes of the Berne Convention. Of particular importance, the British Board of Film Classification has issued nine certificates for film, videos and trailers against the title 'Twelve Monkeys' and only three for '12 Monkeys' which merely relate to trailers. [1]. VHS and DVD packaging in the UK is also titled 'Twelve Monkeys' although there is an inconsistency in the small-print summary on the rear of both which states '12 Monkeys'. Was the film released under a different title in the US and, if so, did this extend to the opening title and credits? This issue surely needs to be resolved one way or the other or, at the very least, should be explained within the article. The film must have a legal title, if only for copyright purposes, and that ought to be reflected in Wikipedia. I don't think, with respect, that potential confusion is sufficient grounds for doing otherwise. Mandrake079 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The motivation for releasing the virus isn't given.

The guy from the lab with red hair is an eco-terrorist, and he releases the virus. That's his motivation, eco-terrorism.98.165.6.225 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen to his comments to Kathryn at the book signing. -- Beardo (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Information about potential viral release added to 'plot' summary. GG The Fly (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian figure?

While I think the interpretation that Cole functions as a messiah figure is a perfectly valid one, it is not the ONLY one, and that the section of the article devoted to this idea (a) serves as the only real "interpretive" section of the article and (b) relies exclusively on a single source smacks of a one-sided view. It's essentially a paraphrasing of the referenced article, and that's merely one viewpoint of several--of many, really. Perhaps we should consider revising it a bit to represent other viewpoints (though, as I say, the Judeo-Christian idea is still valid). 75.64.203.100 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can contribute, just take into account concerning Wikipedia's policies on original research, reliable sources, etc. It doesn't serve as the only "real" interpretive, it's just the only literary critique I could find. We can't just simply revise the section to represent other viewpoints unless we have citations. The other sections in Themes show that James Cole is not only a Christ figure, but also a complex human being (12 Monkeys#Memory, time and technology) with Hitchcockian characteristics. So, in a weird way, other viewpoints are expressed. The section is titled "Judeo-Christian allegories" for a specific reason: to show the Judeo-Christian allegories in 12 Monkeys. However, other religious critiques on the film would be nice, if they are available. Wildroot (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Timelines

I would think that wikipedia would at least bring up the timeline in the film. Here's and excellent article explaining the whole time traveling thing http://www.mjyoung.net/time/monkeys.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.82.56 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That article is just some guy's opinion. As such, it would not be an appropriate source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Any nontrivial time-travel plot must abandon either loop-free causality or the permanence and uniqueness of the timeline. M.J.Young rejects causal loops; so his analyses assume an 'original' history, with no visitors from the future, which is then erased. That fits some stories: in Terminator and Primer, for example, we are shown multiple versions of events, so we know the past can be changed. But, as inevitability is a theme of classical tragedy, neither Oedipus nor 12 Monkeys shows anything of an 'original' loop-free history. Young would say the scientists are mistaken in their belief that the plague cannot be undone, but does the film itself give us any reason to doubt them? —Tamfang (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

>>"But does the film itself give us any reason to doubt them?". Well... it does actually, not that I am suggesting the Wiki article be changed to reflect original research. But there are several clues that the scientists can be doubted http://guidebites.com/12-monkeys-the-hidden-sub-plot-you-didnt-spot. And although MJ Young's original error laden, there are multiple timeline theories that fit the film, even if convoluted. http://guidebites.com/12-monkeys-time-travel-timelines/

The most likely form of time line is however the one spelt out in the film which contains causal loops... and Wikipedia should not contain the other original research theoriesBreed3011 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

more balanced how, and than what?

The film was more balanced with Rotten Tomatoes' 16 reviewers in the "Top Critics" poll, ...

I don't understand this phrase. Does it mean a more mediocre score (7.1 vs 7.3), or what? —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And 88% approval versus 85% ? I agree, I don't understand what that is trying to say. -- Beardo (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"More balanced" appears to mean a larger sample, i. e. number of reviews, particularly by professional reviewers. --79.193.27.76 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not "false memories"

Terry Gilliam might not have written this one, but he repeatedly says in interviews that he only agrees to direct films which resonate with his personal themes, and these are not the nature of memories but rather imagination and perception, as also indicated by an upcoming (will be published January 27th) German biography by Harald Mühlbeyer which even uses Terry's original English quote "Perception is a strange thing" for its title [2].

What is important to Terry, as he keeps emphasizing, is that for instance, two people can be present at the same event and perceive it entirely different from each other. Of course this will be represented as "different" events in the memory of each, but memory's reliability is not what he keeps going on about. The theme connecting imagination and perception is the overarching theme in all of Terry's films, which is his strong opposition to the strict rigidity with which consensus reality, political ideologies, and social values are enforced, thereby stifling individualism and people's imagination.

Therefore, I'd suggest changing "false memories" to anything related to the perception of reality. Also, the one who says "I remember you like this" is Cole to Railly, not vice versa, as his very next line is, "This is what you look like in my dream", which is his recurring dream of having seen himself getting shot at the airport at the end of the film. Finally, why can't it be said in the lead that 12 Monkeys is Terry's most commercially successful feature to date? --79.193.27.76 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy ending

Should the article not emphasize the lack of a Happy ending, an uncommon feature? DGtal (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not unless a notable and verifiable source is found that discusses it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cole dies but at the very end of the film it is shown that a scientist is able to collect a pure sample of the virus, hence saving humanity in the future. Not exaculy a too "unhappy" ending.--58.173.92.68 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The end of the film is left vague, we have no idea if it is a "happy ending" or not. Therefore, it is best to say nothing on the matter. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say whether the scientist on the plane was there to collect a sample for the good of mankind's future or whether she was there to ensure the scientists became the future "Masters of the Universe" after so many "Volunteers" disappeared and did not agree with the "orders". Even Cole himself said in the airport, "This is about doing as you're told...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.68.165 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody knows whether the scientist leaders of the future already had a cure and that's why they were safe and became the leaders... We don't know what they "knew". Only what they told people to do... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.68.159 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The "scientist leader" isn't such at the end of the film. If you look closely, she looks a lot younger than during the rest of the film. I think the script mainly puts here there to say that she's an insurance agent, so we know what dopes are running that sub-terranean future. It's the final dark gag for the end of the film. --79.193.57.86 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. They had said earlier that as soon as the source was located, they'd send a scientist back. Cole failed in his last attempt to shoot Dr. Peters and obtain the pure sample, so the scientist was there for "insurance", and that's why she makes a point of shaking his hand, contaminating herself, and explains the grim look on her face. That's definitely how I interpret it, anyway.Planet-man828 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with any happy ending is that the virus is ostensibly released at the security checkpoint. Although Morse's character may not be able to complete his lengthy itinerary of viral spread, it has presumably been released into an airport security line with passengers leaving for myriad destinations. It's totally ambiguous as to the ending -- although a speculative literary analysis might speculate that the 'scientist' on the plane will prove that Morse's character is in fact the eco-terrorist and then can send somebody back again to intercept him. Who knows. Great ending. GG The Fly (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct title is "Twelve Monkeys"

The title here - according to IMDb - is spelled incorrectly. Would somebody care to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroock (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there have been long discussions on this matter in the past, and the correct title is 12 Monkeys. Twelve Monkeys is an alternate title, but not the official title. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Music

I just created a new music subsection under Production. Does anyone know of some good, verifiable sources on the composer (Paul Buckmaster's article is terrible, and there is not a lot of information about him online), the composing of the film's music, and how Piazolla's music was chosen for the theme? I would like to fill out that subsection. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad link (reference 27)

This link:

http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp

doesn't work as it is supposed to. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hamster Factor

The documentary The Hamster Factor was used as a source in the article, but the ref. was for the documentary's IMDB page, rather than the documentary itself. An IMDB page cannot be used to source the content of the documentary itself, therefore I removed those refs. If someone wants to fix this, so that it is clear the documentary was actually being used as the source, that would be great. But, I cannot verify that this was the case, since the refs themselves were unclear and the information poorly cited. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

False memories?

The article lists "Cole telling Railly "I remember you like this" when they are seen in disguise for the first time" as a false memory, but without an explanation of why. It's a bit harder to check the audio commentary than to look up an online source, and without further description it's not clear why this is an example of a false memory. Some guy (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not a false memory. The most likely explanation is that he is remembering dressed like that from his recurring dream. That is not a false memory, it is an unclear and vague memory, but it is not false. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I've removed the line from the article. Some guy (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Overlooked cinematic allusion?

In the Cinematic Allusions section, how about pointing out how the inclusion of the scene for Thomas Roy's "Evangelist" character alludes to the director's role as the "Blood & Thunder Prophet" in the film "Life Of Brian". Radome (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a stretch. Do you have a source for this? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Overlooked literary inspiration— James Tiptree, Jr.'s "The Last Flight of Dr. Ain"

I'm curious why references to 12 Monkeys never talk about Tiptree's "The Last Flight of Dr. Ain" (http://davidlavery.net/Courses/3840/stories/drain.html), which seems to be a clear source for the virus-kills-humanity thread of the script. The eponymous Dr. Ain flies around the world disseminating a virus (not directly, person-to-person; he uses birds) intended to kill all higher primates and save the world's ecosystem (which he personalizes as a woman called Gaia). It could be a coincidence, but the short story is quite well known, as the first major success of Tiptree; it was even nominated for the Nebula award. Lektu (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the echo is very clear in the film and a link to this seminal story should be in there— for the thematic link even if the inspiration was not direct.

I would suggest adding this text to the SEE ALSO section:

"* James Tiptree, Jr.'s "The Last Flight of Dr. Ain" — a short science fiction story with similar plot elements, first published in 1969, about a scientist flying around the world with the aim of ending the Anthropocene Epoch by releasing a virus targeted to eliminate Homo sapiens, before humanity can destroy life on Earth via climate change."

Kaecyy (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a recurring style of topic: "This film/book/TV show/whatever reminds me of film/book/TV show/whatever. Should we include this as a 'See also'?"

Generally, unless there are reliable sources making the connection, this is WP:OR and, IMO, not appropriate. Yes, there are recurring plot ideas in fiction. If reliable sources make the connection between two works, it might be worth mentioning in the main text of the article. If a film released after the mid-1970s heavily draws from Star Wars, sources will discuss it. To add Star Wars as a "See also" in every good-vs-evil-science-fiction film/TV show is not, IMO, an improvement. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Starring roles

I suggest that the infobox list only Willis, Stowe, and Pitt as the stars, leaving out Plummer. It is pretty clear from the poster who the stars are. Any thoughts on this, pro or con? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

TV adaptation Article

New Article time ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.157.30.106 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct Title (Again)

Although there are comments going back several years about whether the article should be titled 'Twelve Monkeys' or '12 Monkeys' it's not at all clear that the question has been adequately resolved. The most recent comment which was made by me more than two years ago elicited no responses, while an attempt to edit the title today was rolled back within hours on the basis that it had not been properly discussed. Let me say up-front that I am still a relative novice to Wikipedia editing and I apologise if I have unwittingly transgressed against convention.

It's apparent that the film is widely known by both titles and has been released in cinemas and on various media under both as well. For what it's worth, the VHS and DVD copies that I own are 'Twelve' variants, and a similarly-titled Blu-ray is currently on sale in the UK; confusingly so are DVD and Blu-rays with '12' instead. The packaging of my copies is itself inconsistent in that the small-print summary (I'm sure this has a technical name!) on the reverse of the case states the title as '12 Monkeys' despite having 'Twelve' printed on the front cover and the disk itself. I don't know the situation elsewhere but it may be relevant that the US Amazon site only lists DVDs and Blu-rays with the '12' variant.

Clearly there is scope for confusion. My contention that the Wikipedia article should be titled 'Twelve Monkeys (12 Monkeys)' is based on the simple fact that the opening credits state "Polygram Filmed Entertainment and Universal Pictures Present [...] Twelve Monkeys." The number '12' does not appear anywhere in the credits except as a piece of supporting artwork without the word 'monkeys'. If 'Twelve Monkeys' was the title chosen by the studio for the final print, it's hard to imagine why it would have changed before release. It's also worth noting that a company called 'Twelve Monkey Productions Inc' is identified in the end credits as the film's author for the purposes of the Berne Convention. While not conclusive, it does support the notion that the film was intended to bear the same title as its production company.

There is also strong evidence that the film is properly titled 'Twelve Monkeys', at least in the United Kingdom and Australia, by virtue of the certificates issued by their respective film classification boards. In the UK the prime theatrical certificate dated February 1996 is listed as 'Twelve Monkeys (1995)' with a note (which may date from 2008) that the film is also known as '12 Monkeys' In-all the British board lists five feature and six trailer certificates in respect of this film between January 1996 and January 2008; only two of these, both two-minute video trailers dated 1996 and 2008, refer to '12 Monkeys', the remainder to 'Twelve'. It would have been illegal for the film to have been distributed under a different title to that stated in the certificate and I imagine the situation in Australia to be similar. The film originates from the US and its certification title there is obviously crucial. The Classification & Rating Administration (CARA) website is not particularly clear, however, as the title is stated to be "12(Twelve) Monkeys 1995" with '12 Monkeys' as an alternate. It's hard to believe that the film was actually titled '12(Twelve) Monkeys' so I have written to CARA requesting clarification.

I'm not proposing that the article should be re-titled 'Twelve Monkeys' but I think it should reflect that variant because there is clear evidence that the film has been officially released under that title, and at the very least there needs to be mention of the discrepancy within the article itself. Someone who made the same point earlier was slapped down with the comment that the title had been exhaustively discussed but, perhaps through ignorance, I can't find any substantive discussion or evidence to support the conclusion that '12' is solely correct. I realise my evidence thus far is largely UK-centric, so if the alternative view is based on US material it might be useful if that could be given an airing. My choice remains 'Twelve Monkeys (12 Monkeys)' though the reverse might prove equally valid. Someone commented on my edit to the effect 'that's not how we do alternate titles', in which case I plead ignorance and would welcome being shown how we do. Mandrake079 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As a simple note of process, the title would either be "Twelve Monkeys" or "12 Monkeys"; the "Twelve Monkeys (12 Monkeys)" form is not appropriate for WP's titling scheme , implying either a form of disambiguation (which is not) or that that is the full proper title (which is not). It's going to be between "Twelve" and "12". --MASEM (t) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And to add, we would have redirects from the other title to this one, and the lead sentence will be something like "12 Monkeys (sometimes titled Twelve Monkeys)..." (or vice versa). That's how we handle alternate titles/style of those. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This article reminds me of, "'Independence Day' versus 'ID4'". I saw that movie with some people who believed that the iconic movie poster had the actual title, while the movie itself, did not. They couldn't understand my explanation about trademarks and such at all. Hmm. So, maybe in this example, 'Twelve Monkeys" is the actual movie and television series title, while "12 Monkeys", is more of a trademark or brand image or icon, meant for posters or labels, or something else too small to fit "Twelve Monkeys" on? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can discern, the article was moved at least two times without discussion to "12 Monkeys" even though most sources, including the title as it appears in the film itself, refer to it as "Twelve Monkeys". IsaacAA (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you see the sources favoring "Twelve Monkeys". Of the sources currently cited in the article, those that refer to the film in the title of the article favor "12 Monkeys" by 17 to 3. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong.

Source	12	Twelve
Film credits		X
The Numbers		X
Metacritic		X
Hugo Awards		X
Rotten Tomatoes	X	X
New York Times	X	X
Entertainment Weekly	X	X
The Hamster Factor	X	X
Box Office Mojo	X
Sight and Sound	X
Ástor Piazzolla	X
Salon	X
San Francisco Chronicle	X
Roger Ebert	X
Washington Post	X
Rolling Stone	X
The Oscars	X

Feel free to edit the table above with corrections and additions.

Seems like the sources clearly favor "12 Monkeys" despite the title on the film credits being "TWELVE MONKEYS". With this in mind I support "12 Monkeys" as the title of the article. IsaacAA (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Near-unanimous consensus to wait and see until the TV show is off the air. No move. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

---

• First move. 12 Monkeys → 12 Monkeys (film)
• Second move. 12 Monkeys (resultant redirect) → 12 Monkeys (disambiguation)

12 Monkeys is no longer the primary topic for the film, and there should be disambiguation between the film and the television series. In the past three weeks, 12 Monkeys (TV series) has had a maximum of 8,082 views, whereas 12 Monkeys has a maximum of 3,790 views - less than half, many of which are editors trying to get to the television article. I propose that 12 Monkeys be moved to 12 Monkeys (film), and then the resultant redirect left at 12 Monkeys be redirected to 12 Monkeys (disambiguation), where the film and television series are listed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for the following reasons:

• Page views: 12 Monkeys (TV series) is having pageview spikes because it's on the air. When it was off the air, the two articles' viewership was more or less the same. The spike in page views when the show is on the air is not indicative of long term significance.
• Usage and long-term significance: Incoming links: 12 Monkeys (film): appriximately 260. 12 Monkeys (TV series): approximately 120 . The film is mentioned in more significant sources than the TV series: Hugo awards, Saturn awards, Golden Globes, Oscars. The film is a notable part of American pop culture. It is considered to have an influence on "tech noir" films and film-noir in general. The movie's James Cole is a notable christ figure in film. All of this shows long-term significance for the film that is absent from the TV series.

I suggest waiting for the TV series to be off the air and generate more industry accolades, cultural significance, and stylistic influence before considering it more significant than the film. The way things are right now, the film is clearly more significant, despite a recent spike in page views for the TV series. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per BrightRoundCircle. Sock (tock talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose BrightRoundCircle said it all. Fdssdf (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I agree that the page view difference is not convincing enough, and right now the TV show has none of the acclaim or accolades that the film had. --SubSeven (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose At this point, the TV show has nowhere close to the same recognizition as the film. It might in time, and we can reconsider then, but for now the hatnote approach covers the situation. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brad Pitt: Star or not?

The Development section states that "Universal took longer than expected to approve 12 Monkeys, although Gilliam had two stars (Willis and Pitt)..." However, the Casting section states that "Pitt was cast for a comparatively small salary, as he was still relatively unknown at the time." These seem to be contradictory, and unfortunately the references for these are not available online (Christie's book and the DVD production notes). Could someone with access to both of these sources check them to see if this is a transcription error, or if the sources are contradictory? RobRoyDuncan (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources but I don't see them as contradictory. If you look at Pitt's filmography, at the point of 12 Monkeys he didn't have many breakout roles (Seven being the first real one). He was known to the media (and to Gilliam) but he wasn't A-list material at that point. I do agree double checking the wording will help. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Brad was begging to do it, and I wasn't so sure whether I wanted him. In the end, his enthusiasm sort of won me over. [...] Bruce is one of those guys who became a star very quickly. [...] Brad, on the other hand, was not yet 'the sexiest man in America' when we signed him on. The studio couldn't believe their luck!" Terry Gilliam, interview with Paul Wardle, 1995. Brad Pitt was right on the cusp of becoming a star when 12 Monkeys was in production, and by the time it was released, he was "the sexiest man in America". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 12 Monkeys. 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://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19960105%2FREVIEWS%2F601050301%2F1023
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVGbnTP?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1996-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1996-hugo-awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184217/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"doesn't need refs"

Most articles about fiction don't ref their plot section, but most articles' plot section contains WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. By using references we stem original research like this and differentiate between verifiable information and original research. MOS:PLOT encourages citing sources, even primary sources like the work of fiction itself. Bright☀ 12:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If the plot summary clearly had problems with original research (such as in this case, (mis)interpreting the "insurance" line from the very end of the film), that would need to be sourced or removed. However, this summary seems rather straightforward reporting only what the viewer sees and doesn't make leaps that aren't there. So refs aren't needed. If one can find an RS that fully describes the plot, then yes we could include that, but it's not required. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Masem, thank you. The plot should say what happened, including quotes from characters, but does not need explanation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"Not required" or "not needed" are not reasons to remove references, and not a reason to remove content at all. You should only remove content if it's detrimental to the article. Just because you know this is the correct plot summary, doesn't mean the reader should just trust Random Wikipedia Editor because They Say So. "Refs aren't needed" doesn't cut it. The refs improve the verifiability of the section, and they should stay. On top of that you removed information that has nothing to do with the refs. Bright☀ 19:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:

using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.

You're pretty much making the article worse because "the other articles have bad plot sections, so this one needs to be bad too". Bright☀ 19:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I explicitly said the quotes should be used, but not in the form of ersatz refs. And the plot should not include interpretation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I am reinstating the references. Bright☀ 15:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any elements of the plot that are unclear to an average viewer on a single run through of the film? If not, even quotes from the film are not necessary. They should only be used if there's a plot point that races by that may be difficult to miss (for example, here, the scientist saying she's working in "insurance" might be something to quote but I don't think we need to mention that). --MASEM (t) 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any elements of the plot that are unclear to an average viewer on a single run through of the film? I don't see how that's a hurdle that needs to be passed in order to cite the plot to the primary source. MOS clearly states "key or complex plot points", there is no need to show that "the average viewer" is unclear on them. By default, a reference to a reliable source is better than no reference. WP:PRIMARY explicitly permits the use of primary sources to describe the plot of a work of fiction. There is no sense in removing these references because they're "ersatz" or because other articles ignore the importance of referencing "key or complex plot points". Bright☀ 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Your reinstatement of your preferred version is not what was agreed to above. I am persuaded by Masem's argument that the quotes aren't necessary at all. Again, this is a question of interpretation of Cole's statement and whether time travel can alter the past – as such, it does not belong in the plot at all. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're both going against WP:V and the quoted part of MOS. Stop removing valid references. Bright☀ 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

interpretation - there is no interpretation at all. The article states "Cole is interviewed by a panel of doctors, and he tries to explain that the virus outbreak has already happened, and nobody can change it." This is literally what happens on-screen, and the quote in the reference is verbatim. There is no interpretation. Bright☀ 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop. You have no consensus for your proposed changes. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're acting against MOS and general WP:V policy about adding and removing citations. Locally the two of you may disagree, but MOS deems it helpful and WP:V favors adding citations to reliable sources over removing them. "This isn't necessary" is almost verbatim given as an example of a bad revert in Wikipedia policy, and that's the reason you've given, over and over. Bright☀ 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

But it is a fair question: are quotes from the movie that necessary to explain the plot of this film? The film, while based on time travel and having a few shifts of perceptive, is not overly complex. The quotes you are including are very obvious to the viewer and are not explaining any subtle detail essential to the plot. (eg the first quote you have "I just have to locate them because they have the virus in its pure form, before it mutates. When I locate them, they'll send a scientist back here; that scientist will study the virus, and then when he goes back to the present, he and the rest of the scientists will make a cure." is pretty straight-forward to understand, and unnecessary to support its paraphrasing. Remember that we implicitly assume that the work itself is a source, and unless we were talking a several hours-long film, that itself is sufficient to help the reader. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with Masem. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of complexity (and again as I said before, this is not a hurdle the references need to pass) MOS says "key or complex plot points", and those are absolutely key plot points, as described by the sources in the article (Klosterman, 2009 which was removed I guess but it's a verifiable source, and James, 1996). So there are third-party sources that name these as key plot points, which satisfies MOS. And having references—properly-used reliable references to the primary source—is both supported by MOS and WP:V. And, since I'm already repeating myself, "it is not necessary" is not a reason to revert an edit. You should only remove the references and the information if it's in some way detrimental. Bright☀ 13:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The references in question are not really references; they make up a more convoluted way of doing the same thing, to write a description of the plot using the film itself. When the MOS talks about references, it is talking about referencing an independent source that states what happens in the film that a layperson viewer may not understand. While editors could come to a consensus on the talk page about a particular key detail, the fact that a consensus had to be sought implies that it needs to be evidenced. An independent source can do that and essentially take it out of the hands of editors trying to convince each other through quoting film dialogue. The summary in print by a review or a book chapter establishes the key detail beyond question. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually MOS explicitly talks about quotes from the primary source to explain the plot... The appropriate section has been quoted verbatim earlier in this discussion... Bright☀ 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, see WP:FILMPLOT then, as more directly applicable. I do see that MOS:PLOT supports secondary sourcing too, though. Why not just do that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And as a note if you can use independent, secondary sources, they should cover the entire plot, not just setup (for example, most movie reviews do not cover the plot of the entire film, so it would be silly to use these to source the front end and have no similar sourcing on the back. But if you have works that can cover most of the entire plot, then let's add those). --MASEM (t) 14:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)