|WikiProject Novels / Sci-fi||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
K-PAXians on Earth
The article states that: "In the books, prot notes that Jane Goodall, John Lennon, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer are among the most K-PAXian (famous) humans on Earth." which is inacurrate. The book actually states on many occasions, that prot is the only one of his species to visit Earth and those mentioned are simply humans who live their lives in a similar way to that of K-PAXians. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Although in the article it states that K-Paxians do not capitalize proper names, we are not K-Paxians so I capitalized all the lower case p's in the Prot throughout the article. Xephik 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As prot is the name of the character and it's a work of fiction, I have decapitalized the name. One 11:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Even tho K-Paxians do not capitilise proper names, shouldn't prot have a capital where it appears at the start of a sentence? Even words that aren't proper names have capitals when they appear at the start of the sentence. SexyIrishLeprechaun 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In the books, the letters at the beginning of every sentence are capitalized. With this in mind, 'prot' is only to be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. By verdict of me, so be it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just finished reading the trilogy (and discovered on this article that there's a fourth book also): the author makes it clear that he adopts Prot's convention of only capitalising planets and such. Thus, the alien/alter-ego's name is "Prot", but he would write it "prot" and so does Gene Brewer's "Gene Brewer" character. I suggest we either explain the convention and state clearly that we adopt it, or we don't use the convention at all in keeping with the rest of the encyclopaedia. Syneil (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- In line with the above, I've just re-capitalised all the "prot"s. Personally I'm happy for them to be reverted if we state the convention at the start of the article. Syneil (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters), "Wikipedia does capitalize initial letters of proper nouns, and often proper adjectives. In doing this, we follow common usage, and when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (abelian group, k.d. lang), we follow common usage." That said, prot should not be capitalized. Whether this is correct when drafting a paper for English class, I do not know, but for the purpose of a Wikipedia article, it is correct. --Evmore (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not enough information on the books. We need someone who has read them to provide summaries, and hopefully, an analysis. Malamockq 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Should definately be merged, KPAXians only exist in these books and film and as the book and film pages are so sparce it seems daft that kpaxians have their own page (Wildfireone 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC))
Having just seen the film I agree that it should be merged. BalzacLFS 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- An analysis by someone who has read the books would be original research. Any such information has to come from a reliable published source outside Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100talk 03:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is a fourth book then it isn't a trilogy anymore, right? Guirro 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the K-PAX trilogy centers on the main K-PAXIAN, prot. The fourth book breaks the trilogy by introducing a new K-PAXIAN, fled. My definition of a trilogy is a series of books/movies/etc. which are related or linked by a common message, theme, and main characters. The fourth book is an aftermath of the first trilogy; if you have read it, then you will see that it brings forth an entirely new image of a K-PAXIAN (fled is not the same species as prot), new themes, and a new style of writing (no longer are the chapters broken up from session to session). Just because it has a four at the end doesn’t mean it is a part of the trilogy.
- Also, there are technically seven K-PAX books. There is K-PAX, K-PAX 2: On a Beam of Light, K-PAX 3: the worlds of prot, K-PAX the Trilogy (a combined book which includes prot’s report), K-PAX 4: A New Visitor from the Constellation Lyra, K-PAX Redux (a screen play), and Creating K-PAX. (DarkWolfX (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
There is a major argentinean film "Hombre mirando al sudeste" (1986) by film director Eliseo Subiela http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091214/, can any one point at references of this film and the issues arising from obvious similarities in the 1986-film and the novel and film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In the movie, the plagiarism is SO OBVIOUSLY STRIKING!!! Spacey plays the role of Hugo Soto ("Rant&ecaute;s"), Bridges plays Lorenzo Quinteros ("Dr. Julio Denis"). And the description I read of the novel's K-Paxians, well... all that was presented in the movie.
Not the first plagiarism that movie suffered, though. On 1993's "Mr. Jones", Richard Gere storms the place of an orquestra director, just like Rantés.
- I'm glad someone mentioned this! But it needs to be on the main page, not lost in the Talk page. I came here expecting to find that both movies were taken from this novel, haha but the novel is from the 1990s! Amazing that Subiela hasn't been given credit. Man Facing South-east is a fabulous movie, one of the best I've ever seen. Am about to watch K-Pax, it certainly sounds exactly the same so far. I just read a few critic reviews, Ebert etc of K-PAX, strangely they seem unaware of 'Hombre'. Although Subiela's movies don't seem to be that well-known, a Colombian friend says it's because they're too intelligent for the latin public. I'm not sure of how much 'Hombre' was taken from Philip K Dick. Some, at least, I read. The main female character is surnamed "Dick" in recognition of that. Anyway.... - yesenadam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
This section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prot#K-PAXians is written very strangely. It claims that they only capitalize the names of celestial bodies, yet the article itself capitalizes a name. Is this intentional? I assume it is (as we speak English, not KPAXian or whatever ;) ) but should be reviewed by someone who actually has "read" the book (not me). I'm not going to look up whoever wrote some comment about how gravity works, but it struck me as kind of "silly". If we want to know what gravity is, the place to ask is probably not in the front face of an encyclopeida article. Who could possibly answer there? Consequently I'm removing that, but to the author, here is an answer: You seemed confused that a planet smaller than Neptune could exert "less gravity" than Earth. Gravity has nothing to do with the size of a planet, so there's nothing wrong with that. Gravity is caused by mass, not by volume. A planet the size of Neptune could easily be far "heavier" than the Earth if it were composed entirely of some very heavy substance; thus it would have "more gravity". 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Hi everyone, i'm an italian living in Chile_ Sorry for my english_
It seems to me that K-Pax plot has too many coincidences with the argentinian director movie Hombre mirando al sudeste, made in 1986_
Is there any term to mention these "strange" coincidences in the article?
Last edited at 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)