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)

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)

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)

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)