Talk:Moon (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Article is pretty thorough at this stage but if you care for more sources the Irish Time has a review and an interview with the director. -- Horkana (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

David Bowie's son releases space oddity 'Moon' at CNN. —Erik (talkcontrib) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot anyone?[edit]

Since the great movies gods have seen fit to suck this gem into a black hole, has anyone actually seen it who can fill out a more complete plot? (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on?[edit]

I could have sworn that I read a short story with this exact same plot a few years back, but I can't remember any details —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of Impostor (short story) by PKD or the film based on it? (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Martin.
I read a similar Japanese manga many years ago called Outer Zone by Shin Mitsuhara. One of the short stories has a plot like this: the main character is in charge of a outer space station and oversee all robots there. He doesn't like the robot and entertain himself by destroying robots. One day, he finds a crashed spacecraft and finds a dead man looks just like him. His robot servant tells him that after that human died, the station needed a human commander, so the robot servant created an android that looks exactly the same as the dead man, except the android is programmed to believe himself is a human, and that's the main character in the short story. I can't really remember exactly how is the ending, but the plot of Moon really reminds me of this manga. (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember a short story (very old, don't remember the name, hoped someone here would) that sounds much like this movie. In the story a guy is working like a slave to get home to the moon to be with his girlfriend. He is working in hot sweaty conditions in the reactor room with the goal that when he gets to the moon, he will be on leave with her. That's all that keeps him going in the hellish conditions. When he gets to the moon he goes to the infirmary for a quick check before going on leave. When he gets out, he knows that the memory of his lunar girl was implanted. He remembers the moon girl obsession as a dream. It doesn't bother him. He knows that the only reason the company did that to him is that it is the only way he would have agreed to the trip to the moon in the first place. His wife and child are waiting for him on earth. He just has to go on one more run back to earth, when he gets there he will be on leave with his wife and kid. Dfeldman1 (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that a modified version of the Purina logo is featured throughout the film. The Purina logo featured prominently in the film Alien; as Jones has stated that Alien influenced him, and Pearson was involved with the model making, I assume that this is intentional. Doubly so, because I recall reading at some point (although I can't find a link now) that the creators of Alien placed the logo to imply that the crew of that food was "meat" -- also an apt description of Sam Bell in this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly possible, but I think the fact that the "logo" is used as a safety flag on moving vehicles at airports, as well as painted on water towers to make them more visible to aircraft, might be more plausible. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot point[edit]

The following line is in the plot: "He speaks with Eve, who is now 15, and learns that Tess has died "some years ago," and that the original Sam Bell has in fact returned home." This presumes that the original Sam Bell lived on the moon. As far as i can remember (which admittedly may be wrong) there was no statement that the original Sam Bell EVER worked on the moon. For all we know, he could just have a provided the memories and genetic material for the clones and stayed on earth. So suggest change line to: "He speaks with Eve, who is now 15, and learns that Tess has died "some years ago," and that the original Sam Bell is alive on Earth."extraordinary (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a similar chage awhile back and it got reverted (I think not deliberately, it was part of a host of edits that I may have come in in the middle of). Anyway, I strongly agree with you. --Jfruh (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it to your suggestion. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty heavily implied that the original Sam Bell did work on the moon, and that the recordings from Tess were the original ones (i.e. Lunar didn't hire an actress to do these), along with the photographs in his sleeping quarters, the model of his town back home, etc. The second Sam at one point says something like "why would they put all that money into training someone up and then do it all again three years later?" (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment... but it may be worth looking at WP:FILMPLOT to see how to handle such discrepancies. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Saw it last night... amazing movie. I felt the whole part about the original Sam Bell was fairly ambiguous. He COULD have been there yes, but the mementos strewn about the cabin aren't necessarily proof of this. If you remember, when the Sams discover the secret room and open up the cabinet containing one of the unopened Sams, he is already outfitted with an array of personal affects, much like a Gi-Joe toy still in its case.
On the other hand, he MAY have not gone to the moon at all, and instead pulled a Jango Fett, scoring big money for his genetic material and memories. It's a bit of an unanswerable puzzle, at least from the scope of the in-film universe. Mayhaps the writer or director might drop a hint on some future home release. Artemisstrong (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This is left ambiguous in the film but Jones says in one of the Q&As on the DVD that in his mind the original Sam went to the Moon. Whether the intention of the Director should be used in an article like this when it isn't backed up in the material, I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The recorded massages from Sam's wife Tess and daughter Eve do imply that "Original Sam" did a tour on the Moon, apparently from when Eve was an infant until she was three. The three-year tour of "Sam 1" is ending as the film begins; and we later find out that Eve is now 15, which would make "Sam 1" the 4th clone. However, the voice-overs about "Sam 2" on Earth at the end of the film mentions testimony from "Clone 6".
So either Clones 1–3 did not serve full three year tours, or the first tour was Clone 1. The latter implies that the recordings were somehow faked. Personally I think the voice over at the end was an oversight and it should have said "Clone 5". Blade Runner had a similar inconsistency which is still being debated. —MJBurrage(TC) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If 'sick Sam' was clone 4, then the one who escapes is clone 5 and the one they awaken, and whom they leave a live earth link for, is clone 6. So it's quite plausible that clone 6 would be giving evidence, as him speaking to people on earth would have corroborated the story of clone 5. All speculation of course.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That also assumes that the previous Sams lived to the end of their three-year contracts-- lots of potential for accidents up there. (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Production Costs[edit]

"The director took steps to minimise production costs, such as keeping the cast small and filming in a studio, as opposed to location shoots." Yes, filming on the moon would have been expensive... HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. :) I reviewed the citation, and I just removed "as opposed to location shoots" from the sentence. —Erik (talkcontrib) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, "location shooting" doesn't necessarily mean "shooting at the location where the narrative takes place." They could have shot in a quarry at night time or something like that ... plenty of movies haved done "location shooting" that's supposed to be on other words (to not so good effect, but still). --Jfruh (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Health of clones[edit]

Is there any indication in the film of why the clones die within 3 years of activation? It could be that clones have very short life spans (as some cloned animals seem to). Or is there a danger posed by radiation from spending 3 years on the moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The symptoms and time-span of his illness, seems to indicate that Sam has received a lethal dose of radiation; Sam has headaches at the start of the movie, later on he shows other symptoms: vomiting, dizziness, white skin and bleeding. When Sam plays the recordings of earlier clones, one of them says he's losing his hair; another symptom of acute radiation poisoning. Arsmakman (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In one of the Q&As on the DVD, Jones says that he chose 3 years as the length of the contract because he felt that a person would work productively for three years and think it a worthy trade. The answer was in response to a question about the longevity of the clones, implying that the clones were then engineered to last the duration of the contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Would a trivia section improve this page? I noticed that there may have been a mistake in the film - GERTY helps Sam1 by giving him the password to the computer but Sam2 later thanks GERTY for this. Is this a mistake of were they hinting once again at the parity of clones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed this scene (at time 1:04). I think Sam1, not Sam2, asks GERTY why he gave him the password. The scene is a little ambiguous because both Sam1 and Sam2 are visible in the camera. But I think Sam1 is talking because:
  • Sam1 stops before Sam2 enters the room (from the corridor) and before a Sam starts talking.
  • The Sam voice is loud, implying it the near Sam1, not Sam2 across the room.
  • GERTY is facing Sam1. The camera then cuts to GERTY's point-of-view shot and he is looking at Sam1 during the conversation.
Runtime (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Trivia sections and lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided on Wikipedia, per WP:TRIVIA. Information in Wikipedia also should not be based on speculation (again see WP:TRIVIA). (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

korea word in the movie ?[edit]

why can we see and hear korean word in this movie ? the station name "sarang" is writen in korean (btw, I don't know what does it mean)

and also, the "good travel" recorded video (at moment of fake travel) is said in korean too. that's very strange to me, is there any reason ?

I think it's an easter egg - He says "안녕히 계세요" (annyeong-hi gyeseyo), which is how you say goodbye in Korean, except you only say that to someone who is not leaving. It means "stay in peace" as opposed to "go in peace". A subtle reference to the fact that he will not actually leave the station, but rather die. (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

nothing is mentioned anywhere, is LUNAR a korean company ? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, the word Sarang is written in Korean... so in the article there seems little reason to cite the Malaysian meaning for that. -- Evertype· 22:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Like the article says, "Sarang" means "love" in Korean and yes, it is in Korean in the movie. --uKER (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the article also says that sarang is "'nest' in Malay"; why? -- Evertype· 18:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --uKER (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Moon (film) not showing as search option[edit]

As I write this when you enter the search term "moon" in the Wiki side search box, "Moon (film)" does not show up in the drop-down list of article options. You can only find it afer going to the moon article and then clicking on the top link to the disambiguation page. Anyone know how to fix this? Please do. 5Q5 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried adding en:Moon (film) to the article to see if it helped but it didn't. maybe the problem is that the search box drop down only has 10 results in it so maybe that's why. There does seem to be alot of pages in the disambiguation page. Sorry i can't be of greater help Phil Nolte (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Son of David Bowie[edit]

Me and RadioFan disagree on whether the article should include mention of Duncan Jones being the son of David Bowie. Personally, I feel the family relationship has nothing to do with the film and is irrelevant. Radiofan's comment when he readded it was "Disagree, a very large percentage of the coverage on this film or this director, mentions that he is David Bowie's son". I just don't think it needed in the article. Other people's thoughts? Phil Nolte (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The info is not relevant to the movie. If anyone was interested they could find out by following the wikilink for the director. --uKER (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree. (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IMDb plot synopsis[edit]

This plot is word for word identical to that on IMDB... was this copied from there or vice versa? And if it was copied, is that allowed? If not, I can write another independent summary. Rboesch (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The IMDb plot synopsis was copied from here. The history page of IMDb's synopsis shows that the current wording originates from an edit 2 months ago (IMDb doesn't give the exact date) by user yasirfarabi. It appears that this revision of the Wikipedia article is the one from which it was copied. (Incidentally, for some reason IMDb requires an "authenticated account" to even view the history of any of its synopsis pages.) –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of sarang?[edit]

Someone deleted the translation of "sarang" arguing that it could have a thousand meanings. I don't know what they were talking about, but "sarang" in Korean is only "love". --uKER (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The film makes absolutely no reference to the meaning of the word "sarang", so it is pure speculation and POV to assume that it has anything to do with the Korean meaning of the word. This is fiction. Furthermore, it's futuristic science fiction. "Sarang" could refer to a person's name. It could refer to an acronym for some future scientific project or technology. It could refer to a new chemical element discovered in the future. As a present-day analogy, "AIDS" has mulitple meanings. If I go through all Wikipedia articles and randomly insert every reference to "aids" as meaning "Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome" without any knowledge of how accurate that would be, I am imposing my POV into Wikiedia articles. "Sarang" could refer to a thousand things that the editor who unilaterally decided it referred to the Korean word has no knowledge of. The plot summary is for known facts about the plot. It is not known whether the screenwriters meant for it to refer to the Korean word (or at least it is not sourced as such). Provide a reliable source that the screenwriters meant for word "sarang" to refer to the word "love" rather than meanings in other languages or meanings that have nothing to do with an actual word (and it has to be more than simply stating that it is written in Korean; that alone does not confirm what the screenwriters meant, it only confirms that they decided to write a word in Korean. If, for example, "sarang" is a scientific project, that Korean word may be used to refer to the project). If it's important enough to include in the plot summary, it's important enough to find a source to confirm the screenwriters' intentions. Do not edit war and add the reference to refer to the Korean word again without a clear consensus here; that would be a violation of policy and could result in a block. (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Had you cared to check before talking away for nothing, you'd have seen that the word appears written in Korean in the film, seen here. Now be done with it, will you, please? --uKER (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
And had you cared to read my post above, having the word in Korean DOES NOT mean that the screenwriters intended the use of the word "sarang" to mean "love". It can have a thousand meanings in a fictional, futuristic setting. And having the word written in Korean could simply be the manner of referring to whatever it might mean (a scientific project for example) in Korean. Now read this very carefully because I will not repeat it: WAIT FOR CONSENSUS BEFORE REVERTING AGAIN -- or -- provide a CITATION FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to mean "love". That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. One editor does not make unilateral decisions, and when there is disputed content that content is left out until consensus is reached. And this is an absolute promise: If you revert again without consensus here, I will immediately file a complaint at WP:ANI against you for edit warring and violating the policies of consensus, WP:V, and WP:NPOV without further warning to you. And that's your final warning from me. (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is ridiculous. Your assuming "sarang" can mean something else like a scientific project would be an in-universe assumption. Now, since Wikipedia is not written in-universe, that means you're not free to assume that in some fictional reality the word can mean anything else. What's written there is "love" in Korean. You can't deny it and you can't assume it's anything else unless you provide a source for it, which is what your WP:V and WP:NPOV dictate. And about your little warnings, I know what I can and what I can't do here, so care for yourself. Thank you very much. --uKER (talk)
No, your argument is the ridiculous (as well as POV) one. If the screenwriters meant for "sarang" to mean something other than "love" (for example, an acronym), it is completely irrelevant to place a statement about it meaning love in the plot summary. And my main point is you don't know what the screenwriters mean by "sarang", so reference to its Korean meaning needs to stay out of the plot summary until you or someone can provide reliable evidence for what the screenwriters meant. You are assuming that you can get inside the heads of the screenwriters and know what they were thinking, but you can't. I don't know what they mean (thus I'm not putting my opinion about the meaning of the word in the article), and you don't know what they meant, so leave your opinion out. Here's another anaology. There's an organization in my geographic area called "TEACH". It has nothing to do with "teaching" or the English word "teach". But that's the word used to refer to the organization (it's an acronym). If I'm writing an article about the organization in a non-English language, it would be inappropriate (and unnecessary) for me to write "meaning 'teach' in English" because the word "teach" has nothing to do with the organization. In any event, leave the statement about the Korean meaning out of the article until a you provide some evidence or a consensus is reached. And I'm not the one who has to provide a source for anything. You are the one wanting to put the statement in the article, therefore by policy the burden of providing a source is on you. It is now disputed. The default until consensus is reached is for the disputed content to stay out of the article until either consensus is reached or someone provides a reliable source that the screenwriters meant it to mean "love". And yes, if you continue edit warring or violating consensus, I most certainly will tell you what you can and cannot do, but not the next time you do it. The next time you do it I go straight to WP:ANI about it. And one more point: consensus is not determined by how many times you can repeat the same argument. I don't intend to repeat my self again and again in response to comments from you that do not provide any new argument. Let's see what others think. (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, as it can be seen here, the word appears written in Korean (사랑) (with its romanization —"sarang"— besides it), so there's no way it's an acronym. That said, translations don't need sources so the burden is on you to provide a feasible reason for denying that what's there is just "love" in Korean. --uKER (talk)
Same old argument, to which I have responded repeatedly (and will not respond to again): the word written in Korean is not proof that the screenwriters intended "sarang" to mean "love". That word written in Korean, for example, could be the Korean method for referring to the scientific project or whatever the authors meant (just like the Spanish word for "teach" could refer to the organization I mention above that has nothing to do with the English meaning "teach"). And you are doing more than translating. You are assuming in your translation that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to refer to "love", and that DOES require a reliable source. That's the last time I repeat that, so if you want to keep repeating the same argument again and again here, be my guest. But repeating it once or repeating it a thousand times does not constitute consensus. There will be no consensus here until a number of editors agree with you that the English translation of "sarang" belongs in the article. So unless you come up with a new argument, or others add their opinions, or you decide to edit war and violate consensus again, end of discussion between me and you. (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
사랑 is "love" in Korean no matter what the writers may think of it. If they want to make up a universe where it means anything else, it doesn't matter. It will still be "love" in Korean. Is that so hard for you to understand? Per WP:INUNIVERSE, Wikipedia is written from a standpoint in the real world, not in the film's universe. --uKER (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"no matter what the writers may think of it": The plot summary is not about what you think of the word. The plot summary is about what the writers intended in using the word. The plot summary is not an essay about your intepretation of the film. And if the writers were not thinking of "love" when they wrote the film, it is absurd to randomly refer to "love" in the plot summary. Otherwise the plot summary could contain an endless list of other potential meanings of "sarang" that have nothing to do with the film.
I understand that "sarang" means "love" in Korean. I understand that 사랑 is Korean for "love". But apparently you either cannot or will not understand the plain English in my argument that you need a source that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to refer to "love". Your argument of "in-universe" compared to the real world is not applicable here. The plot summary is about the film, not the real world. If the writers did not intend for "sarang" to mean "love" then it is irrelevant to make a statement about the Korean meaning in the plot summary. There may be dozens of words in the film that have absolutely no relevance to the plot of the film. If "sarang" meant "cheese" in Swahili, that's a real-world perspective rather than in-universe; do we need to make a statement about "cheese"? Absolutely not. Other editors have pointed out other meanings of "sarang". Do we need to include each of those in the plot summary? Absolutely not. (And AGAIN -- please read this carefully -- using 사랑 DOES NOT MEAN that the writers intended for "sarang" to refer to "love"; if you think it does, PROVE IT; PROVIDE A SOURCE}. You need a source that the writers were using "sarang" to refer to "love". Repeat: YOU NEED A SOURCE that the screenwriters INTENDED for "sarang" to refer to "love". That's as simple as I can express it. So let me try to convey it to you in another way. I just got off the phone with the screenwriters. They said that "sarang" in the film does not refer to "love". But that's original research and cannot be used as a source. Your mindreading of what the screenwriters meant also cannot be used as a source. Now it's my word against yours. So now you provide a reliable source that proves the screenwriters meant "love" when using the word "sarang". It can't be any simpler. I will not respond endlessly to the same arguments over and over from you. But the absence of a response from me is not my concession that you alone determine consensus. I've already given you a final warning about edit warring and violating consensus, regardless of how many times you repeat your arguments here. End of discussion. (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if the writers named the station "사랑" after a club they liked to go to, "사랑" will still be "love" in Korean. About consensus, it wasn't me who added that info, it has even been subject of discussion here, and as far as I can see, it's only you against it being mentioned, so who's lacking consensus? Also, quit it with your childish warnings. I do what I know I can or have to do, not what you tell me to. --uKER (talk)
No new argument. Already addressed and answered. And it was YOU who restored the info. It is YOU who has the burden of proof for providing a source, per WP:BURDEN. And you appear to have very little knowledge of the consensus process. Read WP:CON. There is no consensus, and the disputed content stays out of the article until a consensus is reached otherwise. And I'll warn you as much as I feel necessary. You can consider legitimate warnings childish if you wish. But the admins at WP:ANI will not consider warnings about violation of consensus and edit warring childish. In fact, now that you have called legitimate warnings "childish", that is even additional evidence that you do not respect Wikipedia's policies. My final warning to you still stands. (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A translation doesn't require a source. It is you who has to provide a reason for it somehow not being valid. --uKER (talk)
Same old argument. Already addressed. You're doing more than translating. You're assuming the screenwriters meant for "sarang" to mean "love". If the screenwriters did not consider "sarang" to refer to "love", no translation needed and no reference to "love" is needed; if a translation was needed, the plot summary should have the other thousand possibilities for what the screenwriters might have meant by "sarang". This is the last time I'm saying this: Give us proof that you know what the screenwriters meant. So far you've only determined what they meant by apparently thinking you read their minds. I WILL NOT ENDLESSLY RESPOND TO THE SAME ARGUMENTS FROM YOU. AGAIN, consensus is not determined by how many times you can repeat the same arguments. Give us EVIDENCE (a reliable source) THAT THE SCREENWRITERS INTENDED FOR "SARANG" TO REFER TO "LOVE". There will be no more comments from me about how the Korean word "sarang" translates, or the meaning of "사랑", or whether translations require a source. You have completely ignored the fundamental dispute here because you have no answer for it: How do you know the screenwriters meant for "sarang" to refer to "love", not how YOU know it translates. My final warning to you stands. (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The word "sarang" appear in both roman characters and in korean characters. The translation of "사랑" is love, and romanizes to "sarang." A translation should be provided so that people know that sarang is a word and has an actual meaning. I'm with uKER on this one. It's in the film as "sarang" base. This shouldn't be so hard. (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Old argument. Ignores the basic content dispute: Did the screenwriters intend for "sarang" to refer to "love"? Absolutely no evidence has been provided. I find it interesting that the anon who added the above comment has no other edits, and the last editor who restored the "sarang" statement to the article before it was protected had only one other edit. UKER, a checkuser can tell if you're editing from an anonymous IP and pretending to be someone else. Be careful. That's a very blockable offense. I will not hesitate to seek a checkuser if I suspect votestacking to obtain a false consensus. (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You're still not getting it. In the real world the word has that meaning regardless of what the movie writers intended for the movie. And no, the previous user is obviously not me. --uKER (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And you're still refusing to address the fundamental content dispute here: Give us evidence that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to refer to "love" rather than a thousand other possibilities. I've asked you to do that about five or six times. You refuse to even address the issue. If the screenwriters didn't intend it to refer to "love", then we don't need the Korean translation and the other thousand possibilities discussed in the plot summary. If the previous user is not you, fine. If anons with no additional edits continue to express agreement with you, I'll suspect votestacking. (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This is getting silly. It doesn't matters what the screenwriters intended. Those two Korean characters mean "love" and they don't mean anything else. Period. What's your issue with that? --uKER (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I realize that you think the consensus process is "silly", but most of us don't, so please refrain from describing Wikipedia policies as "silly". Here is what my issue is: If the screenwriters did not intend for "sarang" to refer to "love", then if we make a statement that "sarang" means "love" in Korean, then we also can make a statement about the other meanings (and other editors have pointed out other meanings in other langauges). I could then add a sentence or two that "sarang" may not refer to "love" in the film (because that is never stated in the film). I could then suggest that "sarang" could refer to the project the characters are working on, or it could refer to an acronym for the name of a company involved in the project, or it could refer to John Q. Sarang, who founded the company, etc. etc. Then another editor could add his speculations about the meaning of "sarang". Then a dozen other editors could add their thoughts on "sarang". Then we don't have a plot summary; we have a chaotic mess of interpretions of "sarang". And the truth is, no one knows what "sarang" means in the film, including you and me. So until you provide evidence that the screenwriters intend it to mean "love", it does not belong in the article. I don't want to insult you (as you have me in your false accusations), but I'm starting to wonder whether you simply are refusing to address that issue because you don't have an answer, or is it that you can't understand it? I honestly have no idea. But until you (or someone) provides evidence of what the screenwriters meant, or a consensus is reached here, the statement about "love" stays out of the article. You have not provided a new argument for the last several posts. So until you do (or you continue to make false accusations about me), or until someone else comes up with a new idea, that's it between you and me. We'll see whether a consensus emerges. Have a good life. (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's funny how you insist in the defense of consensus when you're the only one here that has a problem with the inclusion of the translation. About the word, there's no ambiguity. The word is written in Korean, and if you think there's more meanings to it, expose them or be done with this nonsense already. --uKER (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Same old arguments. Addressed repeatedly. (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Same nonsensical response but your alleged "other meanings" are still nowhere to be seen. --uKER (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks; first warning. And you have provided no evidence for what the screenwriters meant. Someone else had to do it for you. (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post interview[edit]

Does this article help decide this discussion?

Is there a reason you chose to make the moon harvesting company a Korean American collaboration?
One reason for that is my girlfriend at time was Korean and the name of the base- Sarang- is Korean for love so that was me being a bit of a romantic. Korea also has one of the most developed robotics programs and it's one of the nations you could accept would be involved in this technologically ambitious program..

That's the director, Duncan Jones, stating the meaning and intent of the base's name. --Ibbn (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, god, thanks for that. It shouldn't have been necessary since it's ridiculous to request a source for a translation and believe me this wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, but you're very welcome. --uKER (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, Ibbn! You have finally done what I have asked UKER to do again and again and again. I would guess that you didn't have to put much effort into it either. It would hav been a simple matter for UKER to do a little research, but instead he decided to file complaints and argue endlessly. If someone will do the proper citation in the article, I have no problem with adding what Jones meant by "sarang". We may have to tweak the wording, but at least the basic problem will be solved. (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe me you would have had to live with the meaning being added in regardless of this info being found. Words mean what they mean, regardless of why people decide to use them. And you could have been found the source yourself if that's what you expected instead of being an ostrich (that's me being polite) and removing the information. It has been a pleasure. See you on the next one. --uKER (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And you would have had to live with a block if you added it without the above evidence or consensus here. Despite your assumption that you determine the way things are done on Wikipedia, there are rules that all of us must follow, including you. And this is your second warning about personal attacks. Next time I will address it with an admin. (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Mediation would have blown you out of the water in no time, my friend. I'm done with you now. See ya. --uKER (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's not over UKER. This issue may be resolved if it is handled properly. But your false accusations of disruptive editing and vandalism (and now your personal attacks) are matters that I am in the process of pursuing. Other editors who have a simple content dispute with you don't need to have to put up with your behavior. (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Be my guest. --uKER (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't wait for your invitation. I'm handling this, in part, off-wiki. I don't need your invitation for that either. (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Epilogue : That's just incredible uKer had to fight to prove the evidence. Imagine that in the whole movie you see the word "AMOUR" on station walls and everybody call it amour in the movie, ok... WHO here need to find reference to write "station name means 'love' in french" it's pretty obvious, no ? it's just a translation! So it's exactly the same with Sarang which means love in korean, and every body that can speak a little korean know that (ok, I'm french but I know salang/sarang). It does not make wikipedia better if we need to fight for so little, and so obvious things. Please, moderate yourself instead of giving warning, you better appology, for the time wasted. Happy end, nevertheless (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the IP user was correct - Wikipedia shouldn't leap in and attach significance to translations which may have been accidental or unintended. If GERTY turned out to be a transliteration of the Japanese word for "neglect", and even if a knowing set designer had stencilled the Japanese text on the robot's casing as an in-joke when designing the prop, we shouldn't document the connection as a heavyweight fact in the "Plot" section until a reliable source had written about its relevance. --McGeddon (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What makes this discussion so ridiculuos is that nobody only thinks the word Sarang means "Love" then reads the korean word in latin letters and in korean letters side by side every time it appears in the station or on the clothes. See here: [1]. Simply obvious. EOD. --Lkl ★ 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
it is not accidental or unintented, because they wrote sarang in latin AND in korean (hangul). That's what we told you (read uKer messages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If that fool should return and have any questions regarding the name of the base - he might also want to consult the following page: on which the production designer explains how he made the logos and decals of the movie, corroborating the infos from the director's interview. (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


In response to CapitalLetterBeginning's reversion of one of my edits, I corrected line 4 to reflect the fact that the buildings in question are in America, rather than the UK - as per this clarification of the different regional spelling. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The film is British in origin, so the article should be consistent in using British spelling. For example, you should write "Released in x theatres in the United Kingdom and y theatres in the United States." You're not supposed to mix up the approach. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
But if this were the case, surely the article should read "The release was expanded to additional cinemas in the United States and Toronto"? I'm English, and I prefer to write in British English, but in this case we're referring to buildings in a part of the world which doesn't use British English. If there were an article about President Obama visiting London, I wouldn't expect it to say that he posed for photographs "on the sidewalk outside 10 Downing Street" ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
"Cinemas" sounds right, then? Regarding the Obama example, I'm not sure which consistent spelling would be chosen. We do have to be consistent, though -- we can't say "Released in 1,000 theaters in the United States and 250 cinemas in the United Kingdom." Erik (talk | contribs) 21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Does WP:ENGVAR shed any light on the matter? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
"Cinemas" sounds right to me! Personally, I'd prefer "theater" to "theatre", but it certainly doesn't warrant an edit war. Currently there's one of each in the first paragraph (not sure why I only changed one instance - must be going blind) so I'll leave it to you to make the two consistent, while I go & put the kettle on - fancy a cup of Earl Grey? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I personally would be OK with "cinemas", but I think that that's likely to get changed to "theaters" by another user somewhere along the line because it's somewhat alien to readers outside the UK. "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms" (from WP:COMMONALITY), so "theatre"/"theater" being the more universal term here would be preferable, albeit using the former spelling for consistency. I'll wait for your assent before changing it back again, though.
Also, if it helps, I believe that "theatre" is the preferred spelling in Canada, so they may be theaters in the United Sates but they're theatres in Toronto :-) –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll revert it to "theatre". I'll also add an invisible referring to this discussion, as I'm sure someone will try to change it at some point ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this helps, but I thought I'd add that using the British spelling of 'theatre' makes less sense than you might expect. Theatre means nothing other than live performance theatre, it never means a place where films are shown. This means that really you should use the term cinema. However, if you really were going to use theatre than the American spelling would actually make more sense since theater is an ambiguous term and can refer to plays as well as films in America, whereas theatre does not have a dual meaning in Britain. Of course either way it doesn't matter, since nobody is going to be confused as this is a page about a film, but still. Caspar esq. (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

GERTY before HAL?[edit]

Does anyone else think there is any validity to the GERTY -> HAL -> IBM idea? I know that Clarke and Kubrick deny that HAL is purposely one letter ahead of IBM, but that doesn't mean that the director of Moon is referencing it anyway. G is right before H. Thanks. JustinGarofoli (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? I try to believe that you are aware that the HAL->IBM thing is not just the first letter, aren't you? H>I, A>B and L>M. So that said, what's your point? GERTY>HFSUZ? Also, HAL is one letter BEHIND IBM, not the other way round. --uKER (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
On the DVD extras in a Q&A, Jones stated that he felt 2001 was more of an influence on his father's generation, and said the film was influenced by Outland, Alien, and Silent Running. The only relation to HAL would be the fact that Jones wanted people to expect one thing and then be surprised by GERTY's behavior (helpful not destructive to the human in its care). LovelyLillith (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Six Million Dollar Man?[edit]

In an early scene, perhaps during the first rover excursion, one can clearly hear the trademark electronic sound effect for the The Six Million Dollar Man played several times. Is this a deliberate reference to the two-part, Season 5 (1977-1978) episode, "Dark Side of the Moon"? Are there any sources on this or is my hearing too acute? Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear the bionic sound too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

    you are not alone, and my hearing sucks.

Robin Chalk?[edit]

This actor's appearance as "Sam Bell Clone" needs clarifying. Is he, as I assume, a double for Sam Rockwell? U-Mos (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Some scenes require the clones to be touching. I assume Sam Rockwell's face was digitally pasted on the head of the other actor. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It was - they show you in one of the extras on the DVD how they did it, exactly what you say. There is a scene where they fight and Sam has Sam in a headlock under his arm: this is the scene where Sam Rockwell's face was superimposed on to the other actor's face, you see him filming the grimaces he makes as he's held in the headlock and then they show the finished version with the footage added to the other actor's body. (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


As its a British film, can we have the budget in GB£ as well as US$ please? (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GERTY --> Hommage?[edit]

Could be the name "Gerty" propably a reference to Stanley Kubricks mother Gertrude Kubrick? --Lkl ★ 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they discuss it on the film's commentary on the Blu-ray/DVD. Can't remember what they say, though.  :-( Geoff B (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Crimes Against Humanity" - not mentioned in film[edit]

Someone has edited the article twice to claim that the company was charged with "Crimes Against Humanity" upon Sam Bell's return. This fact is not stated anywhere in the English language version of the film, nor the printed script of the film. While it is reasonable to speculate the company would face such allegations, let's keep our claims based on what the film actually presents. -- (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Thanks for detecting the issue and taking care of it! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone's also editing some information about what the possible sequel was going to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi all. It would be great if someone who's wiki-fu is greater than mine could do a section on the hauntingly beautiful soundtrack. It deserves a mentioning I think. Thank you. Vithar Alderland (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

2 points appertaining to plot, and scientific reaction[edit]

I saw MOON for the first time earlier this evening, and did not notice one clone rescuing the other from the wreckage. I saw that Sam, recovering, suddenly saw another Sam exercising. After imagining a young woman previously, causing him to scald himself, he wonders whether he's hallucinating.

The film was shown at the Intrepid Museum, and introduced by a doctor who studies the effects of stress and trauma on veterans. He said that these effects would be pertinent to a Mars mission, where 7 people would be trapped in a tin can for 3 years, although Sam's stress is that of severe loneliness, compounded by head trauma, a combination which could make it difficult to figure out what is real. He said we viewers must decide for ourselves what is real in this film, and what is delusion. When the final report from Earth showed that everything had seemingly happened as shown, an audience murmur broke out. It WASN'T playing with reality vs. illusion after all, but was straight storytelling?! However, the possibility that Sam's stress, with an added concussion (shown with blood on his forehead, not oxygen loss) could have affected his ability to determine reality should have been mentioned somewhere, in the scientific reaction section, if not the plot. Sam clearly didn't know what to think of the hallucination of the young woman, or of the sudden appearance of a second person/self. (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation: does not contain the contents of his remarks.

Introduced by Dr. Charles Marmar, a leading expert on post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Charles Marmar is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at NYU Langone Medical Center and director of the Center’s Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research Program. He has also served as professor and vice chair of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, and associate chief of staff for mental health at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. 2604:2000:F22D:5100:70EB:44CC:8DC7:AD64 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

One-man films[edit]

I'm not sure how Category:one-man films would apply to this film, so I removed it. The biggest problem is that there's a robot accompanying the main character. This isn't a human being, but he's still a character. If we don't count robots as characters, then quite a few space opera films are now one-man films, as they are heavily populated by cyborgs, robots, aliens, and other non-human (or semi-human) creatures. If a character has meaningful interactions with something that talks back to him, it would seem to fail the criteria of being a one-man film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


In the ending voice-over, a "CAA board of directors" is mentioned. What does CAA refer to? (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)