Talk:The Island (2005 film)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Updates to Scientific Accuracies and Inaccuracies

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does one know where the film was located? I had assumed Los Angeles, but I don't think I'm right. Any knowledge on this topic? –[[User:Cruz Along|Cruz Along <sup>([[User talk:Cruz Along|Speak about it]] | ([[Special:Contributions/Cruz Along|How many?]])</sup>]] 18:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]