![]() | This page 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. |
In the scenes where Eli is in his room in that town, you can see a movie poster on the wall for A Boy and His Dog, which is another movie set in a post-apocalyptic Earth. Should it be mentioned in a cultural references section, or something? Seems like an intentional homage to me. Canine virtuoso ( talk) 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we add the full cast of characters here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphapeta ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The article says Solara was a ghost - WTF? Her fading away probably was just done to show that she left on her own journey. This theory of her begin a ghost also conflicts with the other stuff that happens to her in the movie. 41.146.106.95 ( talk) 08:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia. But didn't anyone notice that in the movie they keep whistling the music played in "Once Upon a Time in America" from Ennio Morricone? That gives me vibes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.203.147 ( talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As the lede is currently written, it says that Eli "is charged with" carrying the book west, but since we do not specify who or what charged him with that duty, the sentence is unclear and vague. In the movie, Eli states that a voice spoke to him and told him to carry the book west. Since this is the central and sole reason given for all of the action in the film, I believe it's important to include it in the lede's plot summary. Therefore, I'd like to change "is charged with delivering" to "is told by a voice to deliver". Since I attempted to make this change already, I understand there is at least one objection. What do other editors think? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The production notes can be found here (PDF). — Mike Allen 02:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Although it seems obvious to me and many others, not all who have seen the movie would have agreed it was nuclear. Here at WP, in articles, such as
List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction and
List of nuclear holocaust fiction, editors have removed it from inclusion and argued the fact that the movie didn't spell it out. I had to search a good bit to find that reliable reference (from the writer himself no less) and had almost missed it. Internet searches turned up all sorts of arguments as to what had "really" happened - the
Rapture, aliens,
solar flare, etc. So I think it is important to have it somewhere in the article.
MartinezMD ( talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Plots don't need refs. The word "event" was changed to "apocalypse" and if the ref is being used to justify the change or stop a reversion then it isn't needed. Should someone (in say a months time) change it to "event" then it can be reverted and they can be directed her to look at the ref. At this point three editors are happy with "apocalypse" over "event", regardless of a ref that qualifies as consensus, which is more important than any reference. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Though if all of us are fine with the current wording then no secondary source is needed because consensus would rule. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMPLOT
"Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section."
and since there's already some difference of opinion, I am putting "nuclear" back in as well as the source. Since any of us could leave WP tomorrow, or in some way not be available for consultation, our personal consensus may not enough to survive a future edit without an appropriate backing. If this is such a major issue, we can ask for third party mediation, but that seems a bit excessive for the addition of a well-sourced adjective. MartinezMD ( talk) 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by the judgment that Eli's stated reason for his determination in his mission is unimportant to the plot — or at least by how that judgment is being made relative to other items in the plot summary. How can Eli's stated reason for delivering the book be less important to the plot than Carnegie's stated reason for taking it? And how can Eli's stated reason (which is therefore basically the primary reason for the whole story) be less important to the plot than items like "Claudia gives Eli food and water", "Solara leads Eli to the town water supply" and "Eli goes across the street to get his MP3 player". Mwelch ( talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article stated incorrectly that the knew KJV is placed alongside the Torah. I corrected this to state that it is placed alongside the Tanakh. I was reverted. Why? I am improving the encyclopedia, not vandalizing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please explain your "consensus." In the film, it is the Tanakh, not the Torah. This is not a matter of interpretation. Please explain how you reached a consensus that a book with the word "Tanakh" on the spine should be refered to as the "Torah?" You actually had an edit war over "Tanakh" in the past? Please tell me what evidence as provided to support this odd claim that it is the "Torah?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read through this page and the archived talk page. I see no discussion concerning "Torah or Tanakh" and I see no consensus at all reached on this question. Bwilkins, where is this so-called discussion of Torah versus Tanakh? It is not in the archived talk. Are you making this up? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I went through the archived talk page and found no discussion. Consensus occurs through discussion. If no one ever provided an argument for calling it "Torah," then what am I supposed to respond to.
You need to AGF. I am an experienced editor and I made a change to the article to correct a mistake. I was reverted without any discussion. You tell me there is a consensus, but I do not see any section of this talk page or the archived talk page that shows any consensus for "Torah" over "Tanakh." I also reviewed the entire edit history of the article and found no edit summaries with "Torah" or "Tanakh" in them, so why don't you act in good faith and tell me where this phantom discussion/debate took place? I am really looking forward to your explaining how a consensus was reached without any actual discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You were not the editor who reverted me twice, without explanation; I was reacting as much to that. The source is the film itself. I assume that this is the source for most of the contents of the article. I assume it is the source for the reference to the Qu'ran, which is not otherwise sourced. "Torah" was not sourced either. You suggested that there was a conflict over this issue and consensus had been reached and I repeat: I see no evidence of any discussion and my edit cannot be construed as being "against consensus." We routinely correct and add material to articles. I corrected a mistake. I was reverted with no justification. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this movie bear a strong resemblence to the game fallout 3, it has raiders, cannibals, destroyed overpasses, Alcatrez sort of reminds me of the Arlington library were they are trying to recover books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.66.152 ( talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I am a fallout 3 fanboi and an apocalypse movie fan. When I first saw the movie, I was very much of the opinion that it's visual reference was the FO3 game. This is based on a number of factors, the first being the lighting and washed out colours. There are various other factors such as the way the characters and indeed factions all dress. At first I thought is was the movie version of FO3 (there is a trailer on youtube called the fallout movie) but I think it is just a case of the director liking the general feel of the fallout game and reflecting that in the movie. Even so, it may be worth mentioning it in the article. 82.40.52.144 ( talk) 13:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)junior1138
Can someone tell what mp3-player does Eli have? (A man asked this question at a forum, and I want to help him.)
![]() | This page 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. |
In the scenes where Eli is in his room in that town, you can see a movie poster on the wall for A Boy and His Dog, which is another movie set in a post-apocalyptic Earth. Should it be mentioned in a cultural references section, or something? Seems like an intentional homage to me. Canine virtuoso ( talk) 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we add the full cast of characters here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphapeta ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The article says Solara was a ghost - WTF? Her fading away probably was just done to show that she left on her own journey. This theory of her begin a ghost also conflicts with the other stuff that happens to her in the movie. 41.146.106.95 ( talk) 08:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia. But didn't anyone notice that in the movie they keep whistling the music played in "Once Upon a Time in America" from Ennio Morricone? That gives me vibes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.203.147 ( talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As the lede is currently written, it says that Eli "is charged with" carrying the book west, but since we do not specify who or what charged him with that duty, the sentence is unclear and vague. In the movie, Eli states that a voice spoke to him and told him to carry the book west. Since this is the central and sole reason given for all of the action in the film, I believe it's important to include it in the lede's plot summary. Therefore, I'd like to change "is charged with delivering" to "is told by a voice to deliver". Since I attempted to make this change already, I understand there is at least one objection. What do other editors think? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin ( talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The production notes can be found here (PDF). — Mike Allen 02:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Although it seems obvious to me and many others, not all who have seen the movie would have agreed it was nuclear. Here at WP, in articles, such as
List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction and
List of nuclear holocaust fiction, editors have removed it from inclusion and argued the fact that the movie didn't spell it out. I had to search a good bit to find that reliable reference (from the writer himself no less) and had almost missed it. Internet searches turned up all sorts of arguments as to what had "really" happened - the
Rapture, aliens,
solar flare, etc. So I think it is important to have it somewhere in the article.
MartinezMD ( talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Plots don't need refs. The word "event" was changed to "apocalypse" and if the ref is being used to justify the change or stop a reversion then it isn't needed. Should someone (in say a months time) change it to "event" then it can be reverted and they can be directed her to look at the ref. At this point three editors are happy with "apocalypse" over "event", regardless of a ref that qualifies as consensus, which is more important than any reference. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Though if all of us are fine with the current wording then no secondary source is needed because consensus would rule. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMPLOT
"Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section."
and since there's already some difference of opinion, I am putting "nuclear" back in as well as the source. Since any of us could leave WP tomorrow, or in some way not be available for consultation, our personal consensus may not enough to survive a future edit without an appropriate backing. If this is such a major issue, we can ask for third party mediation, but that seems a bit excessive for the addition of a well-sourced adjective. MartinezMD ( talk) 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by the judgment that Eli's stated reason for his determination in his mission is unimportant to the plot — or at least by how that judgment is being made relative to other items in the plot summary. How can Eli's stated reason for delivering the book be less important to the plot than Carnegie's stated reason for taking it? And how can Eli's stated reason (which is therefore basically the primary reason for the whole story) be less important to the plot than items like "Claudia gives Eli food and water", "Solara leads Eli to the town water supply" and "Eli goes across the street to get his MP3 player". Mwelch ( talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article stated incorrectly that the knew KJV is placed alongside the Torah. I corrected this to state that it is placed alongside the Tanakh. I was reverted. Why? I am improving the encyclopedia, not vandalizing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please explain your "consensus." In the film, it is the Tanakh, not the Torah. This is not a matter of interpretation. Please explain how you reached a consensus that a book with the word "Tanakh" on the spine should be refered to as the "Torah?" You actually had an edit war over "Tanakh" in the past? Please tell me what evidence as provided to support this odd claim that it is the "Torah?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read through this page and the archived talk page. I see no discussion concerning "Torah or Tanakh" and I see no consensus at all reached on this question. Bwilkins, where is this so-called discussion of Torah versus Tanakh? It is not in the archived talk. Are you making this up? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I went through the archived talk page and found no discussion. Consensus occurs through discussion. If no one ever provided an argument for calling it "Torah," then what am I supposed to respond to.
You need to AGF. I am an experienced editor and I made a change to the article to correct a mistake. I was reverted without any discussion. You tell me there is a consensus, but I do not see any section of this talk page or the archived talk page that shows any consensus for "Torah" over "Tanakh." I also reviewed the entire edit history of the article and found no edit summaries with "Torah" or "Tanakh" in them, so why don't you act in good faith and tell me where this phantom discussion/debate took place? I am really looking forward to your explaining how a consensus was reached without any actual discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You were not the editor who reverted me twice, without explanation; I was reacting as much to that. The source is the film itself. I assume that this is the source for most of the contents of the article. I assume it is the source for the reference to the Qu'ran, which is not otherwise sourced. "Torah" was not sourced either. You suggested that there was a conflict over this issue and consensus had been reached and I repeat: I see no evidence of any discussion and my edit cannot be construed as being "against consensus." We routinely correct and add material to articles. I corrected a mistake. I was reverted with no justification. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this movie bear a strong resemblence to the game fallout 3, it has raiders, cannibals, destroyed overpasses, Alcatrez sort of reminds me of the Arlington library were they are trying to recover books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.66.152 ( talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I am a fallout 3 fanboi and an apocalypse movie fan. When I first saw the movie, I was very much of the opinion that it's visual reference was the FO3 game. This is based on a number of factors, the first being the lighting and washed out colours. There are various other factors such as the way the characters and indeed factions all dress. At first I thought is was the movie version of FO3 (there is a trailer on youtube called the fallout movie) but I think it is just a case of the director liking the general feel of the fallout game and reflecting that in the movie. Even so, it may be worth mentioning it in the article. 82.40.52.144 ( talk) 13:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)junior1138
Can someone tell what mp3-player does Eli have? (A man asked this question at a forum, and I want to help him.)