![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does the film explicitly state that the world is overpopulated? The impression I always got from this film is that the masses are forced to live in cities (not suburbs, exurbs, or rural areas). Heston mentions that the countryside is heavily guarded and is used to grow food for the elite. 98.221.124.80 ( talk) 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been a few years since I watched the movie, but I'm fairly certain that the only confirmed source of the bodies was from the euthanasia clinics. Thorn follows the truck that takes Sol away from the euthanasia center and sees that it winds up at the food processing plant. There are riot scoops that appear early on in the film and scoop people up into the backs of trucks, but it's never hinted that those are the primary source of meat. Since they're called in by the police, presumably the people scooped into them go to jail. -- 4.246.9.180 09:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I just watched it, and I did not see any implication that the people picked up by the scoops were taken to the processing plant. A recent edit reinserted the statement that they were. I'm going to revert it. -- LonelyPilgrim 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well since the riots start with a food shortage and end when the supply of soylent rations is back, then the goverment would have to have recived a large influx of ingredients during the riot. it would make sense to utilise all the extra meat they could get, and the rioters could be that extra meat. 84.67.150.114 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That's conjecture, and not allowed see WP:OR. Malla nox 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Conjecture or inference?
Does anyone else feal that the 'Cultural references' section is getting out of hand. -- Solipsist 08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
some of those don't have anything to do with soylent green other than cannabalism so they could be removed but the list should stay.
Wish there were some way to get Xenogears in here without being massively spoilerific. Those who've played that game will know what I mean. 65.190.52.238 09:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems we're letting a list of references creep in again. Are we going to allow this? I tend to think it's going to get out of hand again. There are probably hundreds of references out there, and people are going to list even the most minor. If we're going to list references, I think we ought to vote on which are most significant. — LonelyPilgrim 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the list of references: it should also be expanded to include today's current usage, specifically regarding how people derogatorily refer to stem cell research as Soylent Green. This is important as it pertains to a current issue. Gemini79 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A citation was requested for usages of "Soylent Green" regarding stem cell research. Here are several examples taken from various blogs and forums, commonly discussing the matter of Stem Cell research & relating it to Soylent Green: [1] [2] [3] Gemini79
When Sol is "going home" the background score on the film is Beethoven's Symphony #6. The same musical piece was used in the Nazi propaganda film Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt (The Führer grants the Jews a town). The film was an attempt by the Nazi regime to portray the Jewish ghettos as happy suburban communities.
How exactly does the fact that Symphony No. 6 was used in Nazi propaganda relate specifically to Soylent Green? Does the reference Skywayman cites ("The World at War") actually relate this to the movie? I don't see the connection. The use of the symphony in the "going home" film is not propagandistic. Symphony No. 6 is the "Pastoral" symphony, and so is directly related to the imagery of the film. Symphony No. 6 was also used in Fantasia, but I don't think it's relevant to mention that here. Can anyone justify this addition? — LonelyPilgrim 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any relation between this movie and the one presented here (The Führer Gives a Village to the Jews) Concentration_camp_Theresienstadt#Used_as_propaganda_tool ? 85.204.119.88 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is the same film User 85.204.119.88 points out. Beethoven's #6 is probably used in lots of pieces and it's merely a coincendence in most of them. I remember a Simpson's episode used it once, I'm sure there's no connection. Maybe it is just a coincidence as well but the symbolism of a character clearly identified as Jewish being disposed of by the state strikes me as not coincidental. It may have been done deliberately by the film makers to hint at this. I noticed the score was identical when viewing Thames Television production of The World at War which came out around the same time. They included a scene from that propaganda film so I listed that as my source since I do not have access to the original film. SkyWayMan 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that is some interesing trivia! In my opinion considering the time frame of the "World at War" series for release, the time frame for release of "Soilent Green", the fact that E. G. Robinson was a Jew, and that the going home aspect is comparable in some ways to the propagada effect from the Nazi piece, it's a fairly valid observation. But I suppose all of this is now cut out due to the trivia aspect. 14:05PT, 15 July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaGreen13 ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The show mentions Soylent Green ALOT, maybe it should be noted? MikeyB! 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm torn on this because other users are correct that if you list every reference it would go on forever. Then again both are set in New York of the future which could explain the writers using it "ALOT". SkyWayMan 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should it be mentioned? It's made later and has nothing to do with the movie or its production, it should rather be made note of it on the futurama page and redirect to the soylent green page.
I do not understand how a movie trailer that spoiled the film's plot twist could have enhanced the popularity of the film or its title as a popular culture term, as suggested in the article. Perhaps this idea could be explained and also referenced - I cannot find anything on this subject, although an analysis on why the term is so often referenced would benefit the article greatly. -- ChrisJMoor 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have delisted the article as a GA, per the following (copied from WP:GA/D)-- Konstable 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no references what so ever. Also, the article only contains a plot summary, trivia, and a small paragraph on the cultural impact. If this is all it takes to make a good article then the Clerks. page i've been working on should also be a good article. Andman8 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"New Orleans Sludge-metal Band Soilent Green" - this is un-encyclopaedia-like. I could change it to "splash-metal" and it would be just as meaningful
Un-encyclopaedia like? You mean, writing for dumb people? Dumbing things down by using incorrent terms, or in this case, not the right terms, is rather "un-encyclopaedia like". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.164.114 ( talk) 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
On April 1, 2007, the National Public Radio show "Weekend Edition", as an April Fools Day prank, added a tag line indicating that it was "... sponsored by the Soylent Corporation, manufacturers of Soylent Green. Soylent Green is people."
The spoof was admitted on their April 8 show.
I'd post this text directly, but want to check the actual quote before I do so.
Typofixer76 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This is one of many articles on Wikipedia that contain a redundant warning after the clearly labelled "Plot synopsis" section heading or something similar. I have removed this unnecessary typographical element because the meaning of the heading is clear. -- Tony Sidaway 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
However the first paragraph contains a significant spoiler (i.e. the lasts line of the film) without actually having a spoiler warning - please can this ee reinstated. CheShA
Why are the IMDB photos sometimes in black and white? Are there two different versions of the film?
still photographs from movies are not provided by the cinematography but taken by photographers on set using slr cameras probably sometimes with b/w stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.134.66 ( talk) 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Because of the film's cult popularity, the term "soylent green" and the famous last line "Soylent Green is people!" have become catch phrases in English. Many subsequent works refer to Soylent Green for either dramatic or comedic effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.164.114 ( talk) 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a spoiler, but no spoiler warnings please. See
WP:SPOILERS.--
Martyleehi (
talk)
11:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The intro says "Soylent green is the supposedly natural, but really artificial, plankton food product at the center of the story." If Soylent green is people, doesn't still make it natural? Either way it's not a very good introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.185.164 ( talk) 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Futurama has an episode where there's a mock "Iron Chef" cook-off, and the main ingredient is Soylent Green. Not sure if this should be in, but it's the type of thing you'd find in a lot of other movie articles currently on Wikipedia. --Scottymoze
Joking references to "Soylent Green" are also in The Simpsons and Brewster Rocket —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 ( talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to redo the synopsis as it seems to contain a lot of original research information and assumption, and is a bit overspecific. The thin yellow smog, the "malthusian catastrophe", the government encouraging euthanasia (I didn't see encouragement)... etc. I'd like to par it down to stuff actually explicitly said in the film. Any objections? TheHYPO ( talk) 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the critical response section needs work. In my opinion it would be much more relevant to quote a review that was made around the same time the film came out, and then maybe in addition to that quote some more current reviews. This would better show the actual critical response the film got at the time it was published. -- Twinzor ( talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the specific reference to greenhouse gas effects in the introduction is an anachronism. This was not an issue in 1973 (movie), let alone in 1966 (book). Bart van Herk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.108.1 ( talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, let me tell you: I haven't researched the history of climate change science, or any such thing. And there is a great push to politicize the question of "climate change." But I graduated high school in 1975, and we did something then called "the senior coffin," into which we put items of the times. I specifically remember a TIME magazine I put in with an article regarding a possible coming Ice Age. I've heard people deny that such an article existed by misrepresenting it. For instance, Snopes (among many others) "debunks" this by asserting there was no such cover story. That's true, there wasn't. And many people have faked covers to make it appear it WAS a cover story (which, again, it wasn't). But I know the article appeared, and in spite of many folks denying it, here's the link to Time magazine archives with the text of the article, dated June 24, 1974. There is no doubt that the article WAS published. To imply that global warming was trending as a scientific theory during this period seems a bit disingenuous, unless one considers TIME to not be a reliable source. I think this validates 80.79.108.1's original point, although Loadmaster's assertion that it IS mentioned in the movie is also true. Obviously, climate change was a concern at the time, but as to which way temperatures would move, I would say there was no "consensus." FWIW Jororo05 ( talk) 19:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I admit that I have not seen the movie...it's quite a ways before my time. However, I am very curious...does the movie go into any details of the actual production of SG, or does it just show bodies going in one end of a machine and wafers coming out the other? Is there any indication of the amount of wafers each human becomes?
I know this is a little morbid...to be honest, I'm currently studying economics and I was considering how an economic graph to describe institutionalized cannibalism would look, based on the topic here. -- Kickstart70- T- C 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I see someone added a bit about global warming and I went to check and found it asserted in this article [4] that the first use of the phrase "global warming" was in a 1973 movie called Soylent Green. Is that true? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check |url=
value (
help). However, global warming is indeed an part part of the plot, and maybe this is the first movie to dramatize the phenomenon? --
gnirre (
talk)
15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)I don't have time to fix it now, but someone familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines regarding links should go over this article and de-link most of the internal hyperlinks. For example, we don't need links to "liquor," "soap", "prostitute", "murdered", "videogames", etc. If I have some time, I'll come back and fix this myself... -- AdamRoach ( talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a bunch of trivia to me, not only this, but can you imagine doing something like this with, say Star Wars? It clutters up the article. Jasonaltenburg ( talk) 05:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else got an opinion on this? Muleattack ( talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think some acknowledgement needs to be made of it's pop culture impact just because so many TV shows, other movies ect. reference it. I know many people (myself included until I read the article) who have never seen the film and don't really know anything about it but are still famililar with the name Soylent Green and the line "Soylent Green is people!". It shows the impact the movie had and that it continues to be popular even today. 86.148.66.175 ( talk) 11:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, what the hell is this section doing here? I'm assuming I can't be the only person who think that is a bad precedent to set for film/literature articles, but then again, it's still here - did I miss a discussion? In the 1984 article, it brings up the fact that people often allude to the book/films for social/political reasons. But I doubt anyone would tolerate a politically-motivated list of Big Brother analogues. NeutronTaste ( talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This reference had nothing to do with the subject of the article, so I deleted it. It's a common talking point among militant vegans and is not entirely based on fact. Human hair is not used in the production of human food products.----
I just added some info and an IMDB link reference to the remake for Soylent Green set to be released in 2012. Not much information is out there on who's in it or if any of it's story gets changed but I got the ball rolling incase anyone knows any information please add it to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaakonXCI ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
removed paragraph from Production which discussed the directors previous experience and later films, none of which has any bearing on this film. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Soylent Green famously ends with "Soylent Green is made with people!" Lu Xun's Water Margin ends with "It's people. The buns are made with people!" Does anyone have RS that one come from the other? PPdd ( talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Below material has been unsourced long-term. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with proper references. Doniago ( talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Music
| ||
---|---|---|
===Music===
In the film, after the aged Roth learns the truth about Soylent Green and decides to commit suicide, he is asked to select a lighting scheme and a type of music for the death chamber. Roth selects orange-hued lights and "light classical" music. In the death chamber, a selection of classical music (Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Grieg) plays through speakers, and films are projected on large screens. As Thorn arrives and gazes upon his dying friend, Dick Van Patten's voice utters the famous line "It's truly unfortunate that you missed the overture". The score in this part of the film was conducted by Gerald Fried and consists of the main themes from Symphony No. 6 ("Pathétique") by Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6 ("Pastoral") by Beethoven, and the Peer Gynt Suite (" Morning Mood" and "Åse's Death") by Edvard Grieg. As the music plays, scenes of majestic natural beauty are projected on film screens: "deer in woods, trees and leaves, sunsets beside the sea, birds flying overhead, rolling streams, mountains, fish and coral, sheep and horses, and lots and lots of flowers — from daffodils to dogwoods". |
There have been 3 episodes of the Simpsons that have mentioned Soylent Green. "Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie", "Bart to the Future", and "Million Dollar Abie". Various other articles have Simpsons episodes listed under Cultural References and this article should be no different. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Soylent_Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The Simpsons fall under the relevant category of "cultural references". To be mentioned or mocked on the Simpsons is considered to be one of the greatest forms of flattery available. But I guess this article has been hijacked, like many others, by a self appointed Wik-tator. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Imitation is the highest form of flattery ~ Brian Molko. However if you really need a reference, well, here: "The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History" ~ John Ortved DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have meet are off your "personal" requirements. It has now been 11 days, no one else has chimed in. I add to the article and you accuse me of vandalism. Now you want to send me on a wild goose chase. What is it to you? Other then you wanting to be a simple DICK over the whole matter. CHANGE THE FUCKING ARTICLE. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk) 21:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether or not the material listed is trivia...I will note that the only information in the section is now reliably-sourced...I will say that I don't believe it's appropriate to call a section "Trivia" if essentially any other heading might be appropriate. Thoughts? DonIago ( talk) 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Folks, the label "In Popular Culture" and similar section labels are a SHAM. Yes, a SHAM. It is an attempt to include "trivia" without the socially unacceptable label "trivia". But none the less, they are the same thing. They are synonyms. Call it what it is, or get rid of it. Trivia is trivia. "In Popular Culture" is trivia. I think it is also important to realize and understand that "trivia" *is not* verboten at Wikipedia, there is no absolute rule that says "no Trivia". It is "discouraged" but NOT disallowed. But it is disingenuous to include "trivia" and call it "In Popular Culture" when in fact it is "trivia". Disingenuous. Accuracy is key, if it's trivia, call it trivia - and label it as such with the trivia tag, or get rid of it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add additional options.
trivia, n a. Trivialities, trifles, things of little consequence. b. Useless information or (knowledge of) matters of little importance.
— Oxford Dictionary
If that were how it was used here, we'd obviously just delete it. Usually a "Trivia" section of an article is "Interesting (to some) stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else." If there is a more descriptive and specific title, that should be used. If everything that some thought was "trivial" had to be listed under that heading, may articles would be reduced to a lead and a "Trivia" section. That heading should be a last resort, not the first. My opinion, if anyone cares: "trivia" should be repurposed, or if not possible, deleted. But I think the real-world impact of a movie (not just jokes made in other media) is not trivia. 202.81.242.216 ( talk) 07:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
My assessment of the above is that the consensus is to delete the section, for the time-being at least (with the option to re-create the section if/when there's more appropriate content for it), and move the existing content to "See also" as appropriate. The article is currently locked for another 24 hours, I believe, but any editor who wishes to is welcome to implement this consensus once the lock has expired. If anyone disagrees with what I've said, feel free to speak up with your interpretation of the discussion. Thank you to everyone who participated! DonIago ( talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this belongs in Cultural References . . . I saw the movie for the first time this summer. Did anyone else notice the "elites" in the movie were wearing Mao suits? Was it in the novel??? Did the screenwriter do it??? Richard Fleischer??? It's eerie. User:JCHeverly 20:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Cultural References would be the film's impact on pop culture, not the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.134.66 ( talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This movie has had significant cultural impact, enough that it should AT LEAST have an article section, if not its own separate article. From the new Soylent meal replacement shakes, to the countless references in popular media like movies, tv shows, and music, the cultural impact is pretty significant. A person who didn't know anything about "Soylent," that's a fact that they should be aware of when they stumble upon this article. otherwise, how are they to differentiate it from any other random movie from the 70's? Leostaley ( talk) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The introduction here says:
While the Soylent page says:
Czukrae ( talk) 05:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This huffpo blog says "Leading man Charlton Heston utters the terms “global warming” and “greenhouse gases” for the first time in Hollywood history." I'd like to see a better source for attributing the words to Heston, though the source I've added shows that the film does explicitly discuss "the greenhouse effect". . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does the film explicitly state that the world is overpopulated? The impression I always got from this film is that the masses are forced to live in cities (not suburbs, exurbs, or rural areas). Heston mentions that the countryside is heavily guarded and is used to grow food for the elite. 98.221.124.80 ( talk) 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It has been a few years since I watched the movie, but I'm fairly certain that the only confirmed source of the bodies was from the euthanasia clinics. Thorn follows the truck that takes Sol away from the euthanasia center and sees that it winds up at the food processing plant. There are riot scoops that appear early on in the film and scoop people up into the backs of trucks, but it's never hinted that those are the primary source of meat. Since they're called in by the police, presumably the people scooped into them go to jail. -- 4.246.9.180 09:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I just watched it, and I did not see any implication that the people picked up by the scoops were taken to the processing plant. A recent edit reinserted the statement that they were. I'm going to revert it. -- LonelyPilgrim 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well since the riots start with a food shortage and end when the supply of soylent rations is back, then the goverment would have to have recived a large influx of ingredients during the riot. it would make sense to utilise all the extra meat they could get, and the rioters could be that extra meat. 84.67.150.114 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That's conjecture, and not allowed see WP:OR. Malla nox 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Conjecture or inference?
Does anyone else feal that the 'Cultural references' section is getting out of hand. -- Solipsist 08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
some of those don't have anything to do with soylent green other than cannabalism so they could be removed but the list should stay.
Wish there were some way to get Xenogears in here without being massively spoilerific. Those who've played that game will know what I mean. 65.190.52.238 09:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems we're letting a list of references creep in again. Are we going to allow this? I tend to think it's going to get out of hand again. There are probably hundreds of references out there, and people are going to list even the most minor. If we're going to list references, I think we ought to vote on which are most significant. — LonelyPilgrim 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the list of references: it should also be expanded to include today's current usage, specifically regarding how people derogatorily refer to stem cell research as Soylent Green. This is important as it pertains to a current issue. Gemini79 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A citation was requested for usages of "Soylent Green" regarding stem cell research. Here are several examples taken from various blogs and forums, commonly discussing the matter of Stem Cell research & relating it to Soylent Green: [1] [2] [3] Gemini79
When Sol is "going home" the background score on the film is Beethoven's Symphony #6. The same musical piece was used in the Nazi propaganda film Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt (The Führer grants the Jews a town). The film was an attempt by the Nazi regime to portray the Jewish ghettos as happy suburban communities.
How exactly does the fact that Symphony No. 6 was used in Nazi propaganda relate specifically to Soylent Green? Does the reference Skywayman cites ("The World at War") actually relate this to the movie? I don't see the connection. The use of the symphony in the "going home" film is not propagandistic. Symphony No. 6 is the "Pastoral" symphony, and so is directly related to the imagery of the film. Symphony No. 6 was also used in Fantasia, but I don't think it's relevant to mention that here. Can anyone justify this addition? — LonelyPilgrim 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any relation between this movie and the one presented here (The Führer Gives a Village to the Jews) Concentration_camp_Theresienstadt#Used_as_propaganda_tool ? 85.204.119.88 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is the same film User 85.204.119.88 points out. Beethoven's #6 is probably used in lots of pieces and it's merely a coincendence in most of them. I remember a Simpson's episode used it once, I'm sure there's no connection. Maybe it is just a coincidence as well but the symbolism of a character clearly identified as Jewish being disposed of by the state strikes me as not coincidental. It may have been done deliberately by the film makers to hint at this. I noticed the score was identical when viewing Thames Television production of The World at War which came out around the same time. They included a scene from that propaganda film so I listed that as my source since I do not have access to the original film. SkyWayMan 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that is some interesing trivia! In my opinion considering the time frame of the "World at War" series for release, the time frame for release of "Soilent Green", the fact that E. G. Robinson was a Jew, and that the going home aspect is comparable in some ways to the propagada effect from the Nazi piece, it's a fairly valid observation. But I suppose all of this is now cut out due to the trivia aspect. 14:05PT, 15 July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaGreen13 ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The show mentions Soylent Green ALOT, maybe it should be noted? MikeyB! 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm torn on this because other users are correct that if you list every reference it would go on forever. Then again both are set in New York of the future which could explain the writers using it "ALOT". SkyWayMan 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should it be mentioned? It's made later and has nothing to do with the movie or its production, it should rather be made note of it on the futurama page and redirect to the soylent green page.
I do not understand how a movie trailer that spoiled the film's plot twist could have enhanced the popularity of the film or its title as a popular culture term, as suggested in the article. Perhaps this idea could be explained and also referenced - I cannot find anything on this subject, although an analysis on why the term is so often referenced would benefit the article greatly. -- ChrisJMoor 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have delisted the article as a GA, per the following (copied from WP:GA/D)-- Konstable 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no references what so ever. Also, the article only contains a plot summary, trivia, and a small paragraph on the cultural impact. If this is all it takes to make a good article then the Clerks. page i've been working on should also be a good article. Andman8 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"New Orleans Sludge-metal Band Soilent Green" - this is un-encyclopaedia-like. I could change it to "splash-metal" and it would be just as meaningful
Un-encyclopaedia like? You mean, writing for dumb people? Dumbing things down by using incorrent terms, or in this case, not the right terms, is rather "un-encyclopaedia like". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.164.114 ( talk) 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
On April 1, 2007, the National Public Radio show "Weekend Edition", as an April Fools Day prank, added a tag line indicating that it was "... sponsored by the Soylent Corporation, manufacturers of Soylent Green. Soylent Green is people."
The spoof was admitted on their April 8 show.
I'd post this text directly, but want to check the actual quote before I do so.
Typofixer76 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This is one of many articles on Wikipedia that contain a redundant warning after the clearly labelled "Plot synopsis" section heading or something similar. I have removed this unnecessary typographical element because the meaning of the heading is clear. -- Tony Sidaway 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
However the first paragraph contains a significant spoiler (i.e. the lasts line of the film) without actually having a spoiler warning - please can this ee reinstated. CheShA
Why are the IMDB photos sometimes in black and white? Are there two different versions of the film?
still photographs from movies are not provided by the cinematography but taken by photographers on set using slr cameras probably sometimes with b/w stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.134.66 ( talk) 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Because of the film's cult popularity, the term "soylent green" and the famous last line "Soylent Green is people!" have become catch phrases in English. Many subsequent works refer to Soylent Green for either dramatic or comedic effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.164.114 ( talk) 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a spoiler, but no spoiler warnings please. See
WP:SPOILERS.--
Martyleehi (
talk)
11:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The intro says "Soylent green is the supposedly natural, but really artificial, plankton food product at the center of the story." If Soylent green is people, doesn't still make it natural? Either way it's not a very good introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.185.164 ( talk) 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Futurama has an episode where there's a mock "Iron Chef" cook-off, and the main ingredient is Soylent Green. Not sure if this should be in, but it's the type of thing you'd find in a lot of other movie articles currently on Wikipedia. --Scottymoze
Joking references to "Soylent Green" are also in The Simpsons and Brewster Rocket —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 ( talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to redo the synopsis as it seems to contain a lot of original research information and assumption, and is a bit overspecific. The thin yellow smog, the "malthusian catastrophe", the government encouraging euthanasia (I didn't see encouragement)... etc. I'd like to par it down to stuff actually explicitly said in the film. Any objections? TheHYPO ( talk) 03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the critical response section needs work. In my opinion it would be much more relevant to quote a review that was made around the same time the film came out, and then maybe in addition to that quote some more current reviews. This would better show the actual critical response the film got at the time it was published. -- Twinzor ( talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the specific reference to greenhouse gas effects in the introduction is an anachronism. This was not an issue in 1973 (movie), let alone in 1966 (book). Bart van Herk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.108.1 ( talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, let me tell you: I haven't researched the history of climate change science, or any such thing. And there is a great push to politicize the question of "climate change." But I graduated high school in 1975, and we did something then called "the senior coffin," into which we put items of the times. I specifically remember a TIME magazine I put in with an article regarding a possible coming Ice Age. I've heard people deny that such an article existed by misrepresenting it. For instance, Snopes (among many others) "debunks" this by asserting there was no such cover story. That's true, there wasn't. And many people have faked covers to make it appear it WAS a cover story (which, again, it wasn't). But I know the article appeared, and in spite of many folks denying it, here's the link to Time magazine archives with the text of the article, dated June 24, 1974. There is no doubt that the article WAS published. To imply that global warming was trending as a scientific theory during this period seems a bit disingenuous, unless one considers TIME to not be a reliable source. I think this validates 80.79.108.1's original point, although Loadmaster's assertion that it IS mentioned in the movie is also true. Obviously, climate change was a concern at the time, but as to which way temperatures would move, I would say there was no "consensus." FWIW Jororo05 ( talk) 19:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I admit that I have not seen the movie...it's quite a ways before my time. However, I am very curious...does the movie go into any details of the actual production of SG, or does it just show bodies going in one end of a machine and wafers coming out the other? Is there any indication of the amount of wafers each human becomes?
I know this is a little morbid...to be honest, I'm currently studying economics and I was considering how an economic graph to describe institutionalized cannibalism would look, based on the topic here. -- Kickstart70- T- C 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I see someone added a bit about global warming and I went to check and found it asserted in this article [4] that the first use of the phrase "global warming" was in a 1973 movie called Soylent Green. Is that true? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check |url=
value (
help). However, global warming is indeed an part part of the plot, and maybe this is the first movie to dramatize the phenomenon? --
gnirre (
talk)
15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)I don't have time to fix it now, but someone familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines regarding links should go over this article and de-link most of the internal hyperlinks. For example, we don't need links to "liquor," "soap", "prostitute", "murdered", "videogames", etc. If I have some time, I'll come back and fix this myself... -- AdamRoach ( talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a bunch of trivia to me, not only this, but can you imagine doing something like this with, say Star Wars? It clutters up the article. Jasonaltenburg ( talk) 05:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else got an opinion on this? Muleattack ( talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think some acknowledgement needs to be made of it's pop culture impact just because so many TV shows, other movies ect. reference it. I know many people (myself included until I read the article) who have never seen the film and don't really know anything about it but are still famililar with the name Soylent Green and the line "Soylent Green is people!". It shows the impact the movie had and that it continues to be popular even today. 86.148.66.175 ( talk) 11:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, what the hell is this section doing here? I'm assuming I can't be the only person who think that is a bad precedent to set for film/literature articles, but then again, it's still here - did I miss a discussion? In the 1984 article, it brings up the fact that people often allude to the book/films for social/political reasons. But I doubt anyone would tolerate a politically-motivated list of Big Brother analogues. NeutronTaste ( talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This reference had nothing to do with the subject of the article, so I deleted it. It's a common talking point among militant vegans and is not entirely based on fact. Human hair is not used in the production of human food products.----
I just added some info and an IMDB link reference to the remake for Soylent Green set to be released in 2012. Not much information is out there on who's in it or if any of it's story gets changed but I got the ball rolling incase anyone knows any information please add it to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaakonXCI ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
removed paragraph from Production which discussed the directors previous experience and later films, none of which has any bearing on this film. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Soylent Green famously ends with "Soylent Green is made with people!" Lu Xun's Water Margin ends with "It's people. The buns are made with people!" Does anyone have RS that one come from the other? PPdd ( talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Below material has been unsourced long-term. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with proper references. Doniago ( talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Music
| ||
---|---|---|
===Music===
In the film, after the aged Roth learns the truth about Soylent Green and decides to commit suicide, he is asked to select a lighting scheme and a type of music for the death chamber. Roth selects orange-hued lights and "light classical" music. In the death chamber, a selection of classical music (Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Grieg) plays through speakers, and films are projected on large screens. As Thorn arrives and gazes upon his dying friend, Dick Van Patten's voice utters the famous line "It's truly unfortunate that you missed the overture". The score in this part of the film was conducted by Gerald Fried and consists of the main themes from Symphony No. 6 ("Pathétique") by Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6 ("Pastoral") by Beethoven, and the Peer Gynt Suite (" Morning Mood" and "Åse's Death") by Edvard Grieg. As the music plays, scenes of majestic natural beauty are projected on film screens: "deer in woods, trees and leaves, sunsets beside the sea, birds flying overhead, rolling streams, mountains, fish and coral, sheep and horses, and lots and lots of flowers — from daffodils to dogwoods". |
There have been 3 episodes of the Simpsons that have mentioned Soylent Green. "Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie", "Bart to the Future", and "Million Dollar Abie". Various other articles have Simpsons episodes listed under Cultural References and this article should be no different. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Soylent_Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The Simpsons fall under the relevant category of "cultural references". To be mentioned or mocked on the Simpsons is considered to be one of the greatest forms of flattery available. But I guess this article has been hijacked, like many others, by a self appointed Wik-tator. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Imitation is the highest form of flattery ~ Brian Molko. However if you really need a reference, well, here: "The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History" ~ John Ortved DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have meet are off your "personal" requirements. It has now been 11 days, no one else has chimed in. I add to the article and you accuse me of vandalism. Now you want to send me on a wild goose chase. What is it to you? Other then you wanting to be a simple DICK over the whole matter. CHANGE THE FUCKING ARTICLE. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE ( talk) 21:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether or not the material listed is trivia...I will note that the only information in the section is now reliably-sourced...I will say that I don't believe it's appropriate to call a section "Trivia" if essentially any other heading might be appropriate. Thoughts? DonIago ( talk) 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Folks, the label "In Popular Culture" and similar section labels are a SHAM. Yes, a SHAM. It is an attempt to include "trivia" without the socially unacceptable label "trivia". But none the less, they are the same thing. They are synonyms. Call it what it is, or get rid of it. Trivia is trivia. "In Popular Culture" is trivia. I think it is also important to realize and understand that "trivia" *is not* verboten at Wikipedia, there is no absolute rule that says "no Trivia". It is "discouraged" but NOT disallowed. But it is disingenuous to include "trivia" and call it "In Popular Culture" when in fact it is "trivia". Disingenuous. Accuracy is key, if it's trivia, call it trivia - and label it as such with the trivia tag, or get rid of it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add additional options.
trivia, n a. Trivialities, trifles, things of little consequence. b. Useless information or (knowledge of) matters of little importance.
— Oxford Dictionary
If that were how it was used here, we'd obviously just delete it. Usually a "Trivia" section of an article is "Interesting (to some) stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else." If there is a more descriptive and specific title, that should be used. If everything that some thought was "trivial" had to be listed under that heading, may articles would be reduced to a lead and a "Trivia" section. That heading should be a last resort, not the first. My opinion, if anyone cares: "trivia" should be repurposed, or if not possible, deleted. But I think the real-world impact of a movie (not just jokes made in other media) is not trivia. 202.81.242.216 ( talk) 07:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
My assessment of the above is that the consensus is to delete the section, for the time-being at least (with the option to re-create the section if/when there's more appropriate content for it), and move the existing content to "See also" as appropriate. The article is currently locked for another 24 hours, I believe, but any editor who wishes to is welcome to implement this consensus once the lock has expired. If anyone disagrees with what I've said, feel free to speak up with your interpretation of the discussion. Thank you to everyone who participated! DonIago ( talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this belongs in Cultural References . . . I saw the movie for the first time this summer. Did anyone else notice the "elites" in the movie were wearing Mao suits? Was it in the novel??? Did the screenwriter do it??? Richard Fleischer??? It's eerie. User:JCHeverly 20:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Cultural References would be the film's impact on pop culture, not the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.134.66 ( talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This movie has had significant cultural impact, enough that it should AT LEAST have an article section, if not its own separate article. From the new Soylent meal replacement shakes, to the countless references in popular media like movies, tv shows, and music, the cultural impact is pretty significant. A person who didn't know anything about "Soylent," that's a fact that they should be aware of when they stumble upon this article. otherwise, how are they to differentiate it from any other random movie from the 70's? Leostaley ( talk) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The introduction here says:
While the Soylent page says:
Czukrae ( talk) 05:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This huffpo blog says "Leading man Charlton Heston utters the terms “global warming” and “greenhouse gases” for the first time in Hollywood history." I'd like to see a better source for attributing the words to Heston, though the source I've added shows that the film does explicitly discuss "the greenhouse effect". . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)