Talk:Children of Men

Links

The Australian film review link should be cut - it is poorly written and misses the point of the film,as opposed to the well written prague review. can we find a better one?User:mangonorth

Budget

I see the information box says Children of Men's budget is $116 million. Is there any reputable source confirming this? I saw the trailer before Miami Vice a few nights ago and I can't imagine this film, which seems to be a fairly low-key, effects-light sci-fi drama, costing such a MASSIVE amount of money. Gunslinger 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of a specific $116 million budget for Children of Men, but I found an estimate of $150 million on the movie's IMDb business data. IMDb is not always verifiable, but I don't know if budgets can be user-submitted. If they are, then it is probably best to remove the budget until a valid source shares the amount. Also, please sign your comments on the talk page using four tildes in a row (~). --Erik 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it says $175 million. Wow, the budget for this one keeps ballooning. Honestly, having read the director discuss how he used hand-held photography and pre-existing locations for this movie, I HIGHLY doubt this film cost that much. Gunslinger 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not making myself more clear and wiki-focused. First, what I should've said was that I think it would be useful, neutral information if someone contributed a detailed account of the numerous differences between the plot of the book and the plot of the film--this is precisely the sort of thing that readers of a book inquiring about a film adaptation would like to know. For all I know the film may be worthy in other ways. But one of the reasons a wikipedia user goes to a page about a film is in making a decision about whether to see it or not. The relevance of the differences between a book and its film adaptation to such a purpose is clear. I should've expressed this in a more neutral tone. However, I should also say that there is something problematic about deleting content on a discussion page, as opposed to deleting article material. My purpose is to improve the article, not propagandize for conservative Catholicism (I'm not a conservative Catholic anyway). It was clear to me from the two articles that no one had so much as noticed the "agenda" of the book. But prospective readers of the book might want to know that, either to encourage or discourage reading it; and people who liked or disliked the book for that reason might want to know that the film will be different, and to seek it out or avoid it acccordingly.

If you look at the history of my participation on wikipedia, you won't see much "soapbox" activity. Please respond in the future with a comment, if you think a statement in *discussion* is offtopic, rather than simply erasing the comment. If one wants *discussion* that is. If one want's something else, never mind. Agent Cooper 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I apologize for deleting what you wrote. It's just that I've left warnings about not to use the talk page as a forum on other film articles, and it doesn't seem to deter future comments of a similar nature. I've seen a few other editors clean up talk pages that had forum-type comments, but I'm not sure what the policy is. A comparison of the book and the film would be a great addition to the article. Feel free to outline the differences clearly. My suggestion is to state facts from the book and facts from the film (for example, the protagonist met this person in the book, but he doesn't meet this person in the film), as opposed to having your own take about certain circumstances. Please see WP:OR guidelines as well. Good luck. --Erik 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Release Date

The release is wrong. While it may not be a worldwide release, September 22nd is the date in Ireland and the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.75.31 (talk • contribs) 13:16, September 5, 2006 (UTC)

According to the U.S. official movie site, the release date is December 25, 2006. According to the U.K. official movie site, the release date is September 22, 2006. Both have been included in the Infobox Film template. The U.S. release date was originally September 22, I believe, but was postponed for whatever reason -- better profit during the holiday season, Oscar contender, etc. --Erik 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Um we shouldn't have two release dates, just the first release date. The US will get it three months later than the UK but Wikipedia is a geographically neutral encyclopaedia and if we include the US release date then we should include every other country as well. Ben W Bell talk 07:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Film reflection

Military equipment included a 1970's vintage Cheiftain Tank and Scorpion/Scimitar light tank. Seem a bit unlikely for use in 2027. The film is full of interesting religous symbology and understated suggestion, and even the odd red herring ('aliens' mentioned). A main character called 'Theo' - check the Greek translation ? Lots of nods and wink to previous films (Even 'Milo' in Planet of the Apes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.255.198.101 (talk • contribs) 16:01, September 23, 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant symbolism--75.176.185.207 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can hardly expect the British Army to lend Challengers and other light tanks looking at the way they're portrayed. I can see how the budget for this film was so big, and it was great. There is LOTS to write about, and I'm pretty damn happy we finally have a good british movie out there. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB (talk • contribs) 13:00, September 24, 2006 (UTC)

Theo is named fully once as *Theolonius or Thelonius.--84.20.17.84 09:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds almost like a mirror image of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, with a total cessation of new generations instead of mass numbers of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.168.169 (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Fix cut and paste moves

I see the next editor discarded petition to join the page history. What's going on? -Ricksy 03:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault. I didn't realise it was specifically a history merge, I thought it was just a general merge. I've re-added in the tag. Ben W Bell talk 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Edits prior to 14 July 2006 are back (six months). -Ricksy 02:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Overly wiki-linked?

Does anyone think that the plot summary is overly wiki-linked? The wiki-links of simple words: autograph, bomb, refugees, brand name, ambushed, motorcycle, scientists, bank, boat, soldier -- to name a few of the words that really shouldn't be linked. If no one disagrees, I'm going to remove most of them. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cast

I wonder why Julianne Moore is in the main cast due to her ad hoc old age. Does it contradict the novel? --Brand спойт 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shanti

The former midwife is something of a New Ager, wearing braids and chanting "Shanti, shanti, shanti" over the corpse of Julian. "Shanti, shanti, shanti" also appear at the end after the credits.

Name of the child

What is the name Kee initially wants to put the child? Frolley?

That's right. Evenfiel 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Animal abuse?

The plot summary says, "After Kee explains how animals are abused by researchers seeking a means of reversing humanity's infertility". I saw the movie last night, and what I recall is Kee telling Theo that humans cut off two of a cow's 6 teats because their machines are only made to milk 4 teats. She questions why we don't just make machines milk 6 teats. I don't recall any exposition re animal abuse by researchers, or at least not in this scene. Can anyone else substantiate or contradict my memory? Louise Allana 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I also didn't see it, Evenfiel 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she was concerned with how she would be treated as a mother by people who wanted something from her.--Chinawhitecotton 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Film music

This film used a large variety of music, some of which is used to produce a very striking effect. Maybe it would be nice to have a section about that in the article? I'm not very knowledgeable about music, so I didn't recognize much of it. Maybe somebody could fill the gap? Just two pieces I recognized:
a) In the scene with Kee at Jasper's place, one can hear one of Gustav Mahler's Kindertotenlieder: "Nun will die Sonn' so hell aufgehen".
b) In the refugee camp, when the protagonists are standing in front of the russian guy's door, (just before the outbreak of the battle) one can hear some bars of the 2nd movement of Shostakovich's 10th symphony
It would be nice if somebody could follow up on this. --Malbi 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Set dressing

"Michelangelo's damaged and repaired statue of David is seen in one scene, -- with its left shin replaced with a metal bar -- dramatically showing both that mobs have rampaged through the great museums of the world and that Britain has made great effort to salvage such artifacts, without any character ever mentioning the fact."

The last bit of that information is incorrect. Theo's cousin says that they were too late to save the Pietà, so he did mention that fact.Evenfiel 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuous shot not one take.

Just to mention that the continuous shot during the war scene is actuallly made from several segments edited together using computers to help make it more seamless. This was mentioned in an interview in the UK Metro newspaper and also was evidenced by gradual disappearance of the blood specks on the camera lens once Theo moves inside the building. I'll try to find some documented citation to back this up. The Reviewist 12:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Documented citation would be awesome. Hoping to clean up this article before the release date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the Metro reference but here is one from another newspaper http://www.londonnet.co.uk/films/childrenofmen.html here in particular this comment: One incredible scene, the most panic-inducing chase sequence in years, contains such well-camouflaged cuts that it appears to be a single shot twelve minutes in length. Producer Jim Clay said, "We were charged with knitting together a series of shots that should hopefully become seamless as one timeless piece of action." I hope this is helpful. I can write this up in a few days time, but someone else is welcome amend the site sooner. The Reviewist 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

US Release Dates

Can someone provide a source for "December 29, 2006" for the US wide release? The only source I have found is this article itself. --Crushti 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a true wide release for this film. I was looking into this (wanting to see it as well) and couldn't find anything to indicate a wide release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will be removing that date from the article if no one has any sources or arguments to keep it. [b]EDIT[/b]: imbd.com says Dec. 29, but I'm wondering how reliable this is, especially since there are no listings for the movie at my local theaters for Dec. 29 --Crushti 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably where the information came from. IMDb sometimes has bad info about upcoming films. I checked Rotten Tomatoes, and it seems to be a select screening only. I suggest going to the official site and checking the movie ticket sites that the site provides. (Didn't find anything for my area, sigh.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried that, in any browser that I tried, the "Enter the site" button didn't work. (Popup blockers are off). Also, I have discovered that one local theater is not yet reporting its showtimes for December 29, so it's possible that the movie will be released at that theater. I have found a few other sources citing December 29th (using Google), but all these sites may be getting their date from the same place. But I suppose the amount of sources is sufficient in letting the date remain in the Wikipedia article. --Crushti 00:02, 28 December 2006

The links aren't special. There's three: Moviefone, Fandango, and Movie Tickets. That's all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I really question calling these sufficient sources when there's no backup, the date is supposedly tomorrow, and nobody can find this at any local theater anywhere. I'm a bit miffed because the BF and I made plans to go see it this weekend based on these supposed wide release dates, only to find out it's not going to be anywhere around here! I can't believe that nobody out there knows what's going on with this film, but right now it seems this way. Some indication should be made that this date is unlikely, even if it is only a few hours away at this point, if only for accuracy's sake. 65.25.107.20 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon further research, it turns out that there is no wide release date and it will NOT be available to some Americans in over a 500 mile radius. The closest showing to me, for example, is well over 200 miles. Due to the fact that there is no wide release date, I will remove it. (I hate to put my opinion out there like this, but it's rather ridiculous that a wide release was originally planned in September, and now there is not one at all... and all because the filmmakers are being Oscar-greedy). --Crushti 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really not being wide-released at all, then, or will it show up sometime in January or February around when nominations get announced and/or the awards are held? I know there have been plenty of doc nominations that never saw wide release, but to say the same of a movie seeking "Best Director" is a little... odd. 65.25.107.20 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll find out in due time, I'm sure. The question's been asked, so if any of us find concrete information, it can be presented here and re-inserted into the article accurately. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have updated it again, this time with 1/5, but I don't see the reference they provided as being particularly authoritative. The criticism in question is written by an internet critic and I don't see any backup for his information. 65.25.107.20 18:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1/5 wide release date is stated here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/schedule/ Gunslinger 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has it going to 1500 North American theaters on 1/5 RoyBatty42 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The film opened in limited release in the United States on December, 25, 2006 in New York and Los Angeles. It goes in wide release in January 2007. This is typically done to qualify a film for Academy Award consideration. I work in the film industry and live in Los Angeles. Films typically open here earlier than the rest of the country. For the film to qualify for the forthcoming Oscar awards, it must play at least seven days in Los Angeles; hence, many films open on Christmas Day in only one theater in LA, which thus ensures them of Oscar qualification. 207.69.138.10 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Reception" section

Whoever wrote the bulk of this section is using the page as a platform for criticizing the movie. The purpose of a "Reception" section is to impartially note what critics have said about the film.

abraham 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. It's a long-winded rant. I've hacked it into shape. Lontano 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Divergence from Novel

The article fairly screams out for a section pointing out the vast differences between the film and the source novel (characters, background, plot are all different). I hesitate to do it myself as I have only read the article about the novel and not the book itself (and have only seen the film once).RoyBatty42 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are crazy

I live in the US, so I guess it's no surprise that I have finally seen a trailer for this on TV... I understand this film is old news for basically all the rest of the English-speaking world, but I still want to actually watch the bloody thing before I know every single aspect about it. Thanks. ;)--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hibbs Review

Can someone tell me why the title of the link isn't used as a hyperlink, while the URL is being shown instead? How do I fix it? Thanks. - MSTCrow 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this identified as a British film?

The info box identifies this as "Country UK."

The film was financed and released by Universal Pictures, which is a French and American company. The director is a Mexican citizen. All but one of the credit screenwriters is an American (the other is the director). The cast is both British and English. It was shot in both England and Argentina. Post production was in California.

So how exactly is this a "British" film? 207.69.138.10 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a British/American co-production, for the reasons you mentioned -- but it was released in the U.K. before anywhere else. Lontano 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1984

Is the section comparing this film to Nineteen Eighty-Four necessary? The similiarities aren't powerful enough to suggest this film was directly inspired by Orwell's novel. What's next? Maybe a section comparing to The Last Man or Mad Max or Waterworld. It just seems pointless. Thoughts? Gunslinger 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the plot had more similiarities to Hell Comes to Frogtown then anything else. I mean minus the Frog People, it is almost a carbon copy of Hell Comes.