Talk:Children of Men

Film Start‑class

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has an archived peer review.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]