This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Island (2005 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Plot described in this stub is incorrect. someone should address that. I would, but unfortunately I don't have the patience for that.
There you go. I went by my memory of the original Parts, so there's a chance it's a wee bit off. But it's at least more accurate than it used to be.-- RiffRaff1138 01:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
There probably ought to be some mention of the fact that this is not an official re-make: the writing credits do not acknowledge any of the creative team from "Clonus". i.e. it's a ripoff job. Skyraider 5 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
This section, I feel, does not meet the standard of NPOV, especially with claims like this:
Towards the end of the movie there is to be a mass-execution of "defective" products. They are put into a large room marked "incinerator" and made to burn. This is a poignant and unavoidable reference to the Holocaust and the cremation of "defective" human beings.
As such, it is not an uncredited remake or a pure derivative work. Aside from these interesting elements, the utter destruction of the car-chases, the high-fall and the incinerator scene combined with the bright daylight cinematography and social satire stand out as unique to this misunderstood film.
The clones are older in Clonus, the escaped clone is befriended and aided in Clonus and most of satirical elements in the Island are not present in Clonus. Cinematically, there is no resemblence between the two.
The use of descriptors like "poignant" and "misunderstood" make it obvious this is not NPOV. I would also like to know exactly what is meant by "Cinematically, there is no resemblence [sic] between the two." Satan Rides a Bike 09:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the bit about "misunderstood", but that's not NPOV or orig. research. It am simply in agreement with the plethora of reviews on rottentomatoes.com etc. which say as much. I even wasted $20 on Clonus. "Cinematically" was intended to point out that there isn't any CGI, very few stunts, and nothing really of note from a movie-making standpoint that is in Clonus. It is unfortunate that the critics and some viewers and wikipedia contributors did not see everything Michael Bay tried to include. Is he to blame? I don't know. This article can mitigate to an extent, but I agree with Bay, the marketting had something to do with it. The movie did well in Korea, one of the biggest grossers of all time there. These are pretty much just facts you can check just by watching the movie and reading the reviews and this article. Jok2000 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
While watching the movie, I assumed the product placement was overdone on purpose. Isn't the movie saying that we are all merely bodies for work and control and consumption. - Acjelen 01:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I included a link to an article that explained the extensive product placement. Obviously, the companies pay to have their brand displayed- this source of income was needed to get the film financed.- Marikology
The section below was above the spolier notice, and it's rather spoilery... I was tryign to figure out where to merge it, and then thought it was somewhat of a trivial point to be included in the main article at all. If someone puts it back, though, please put it back in below the spoiler notice. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The "products'" names are determined by three factors; ex. Jordan Two-Delta
Did someone else find an influence of Logan's Run? -- Error 03:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else notice that Never let me go by British author Kazuo Ishiguro, even though it was published in the same year as the film was released, is extremely close in plot? Milliped 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the connection Merrick - Merck anything more than original research? For that matter, Joseph Merrick is the Elephant-Man. And David Merrick was not above lying to promote his business. -- Error 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
122,000,000 for a budget!!!???
Starkweather is described as "a tall and muscular African-American."
I haven't seen the movie, but based on the plot description in this article, America has nothing to do with the movie. Perhaps he should be labeled "a tall and muscular African-Utopian."
Or maybe we should just say he's black.
Or how about disposing with labels altogether? Wasn't that Dr. King's goal--that people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?
Sorry to bring "politics" into this, but calling him an "African-American" in this context seems silly to me...
cluth 06:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
User:129.120.168.146 added a section called plot holes:
I think this is POV, it might be possible to rewrite it NPOV, but it isn't a plot hole, so I've removed it from the article. It isn't unusual for fiction to leave parts of the story unexplained. Edward 10:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is more in line with insurance policies. You never know when you need it. And a glance at the other clones' stories, some of them have been in the "colony" for quite a long time. Why they haven't been picked for the "lottery" may be because there is no need for their parts yet. So, this suggests that some of the clones are made for eventualities. -- Destron Commander 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It's listed as a scientific inaccuracy that a full human clone would begin life in the form of a newborn baby, and not a middle-aged adult. This is true, however, I think the writers cleverly got around this by introducing those breast-implantesque sacs that contained-- hell, I duhhno, some sort of mutant embryo. I think if a clone were created from scratch, then they would be a newborn baby, but if half the human is already built before the sponsor's DNA is implimented then couldn't it be deemed possible (for the sake of science-fiction) that clones could be birthed as adults? I don't think it's an inaccuracy because they did throw in a psuedo-scientific explination that made sense. --Feb 16, 2005
Someone added a massive section in Scientific Accuracies and Inaccuracies that I think should be rewritten. It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, even though it does make some interesting points. Whoever feels the urge to reword that portion of the article, it is the first large paragraph. -- Smell? 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the whole section reads like a copyvio, especially this:
"When Sean Bean's character, Dr. Merrick, suggests that he was a year away from curing childhood leukemia, our truth sensors should be peaked"
-- 70.181.28.85 23:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The article contains content that conflicts with the Dolly the sheep wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep#Death "On February 14, 2003 it was announced that Dolly had a progressive lung disease. A necropsy confirmed she had sheep pulmonary adenomatosis, a fairly common disease of sheep. Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly being a clone, and that other sheep on the farm had similar ailments. Such lung diseases are especially a danger for sheep kept indoors, as Dolly had to be for security reasons." --User ID: 214405 24:44, 28 January 2006
I think that this plot is too detailed. Grammar can be improved and the story can be narrated without getting into such minor situations as the food they had or the bathingsuit they were wearing. The effort is to be appreciated though. I would do it myself if had the time, I´ll see what I can do. Laurentis 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)laurentis
Why isn't Huxley's Brave New World mentioned anywhere in this article? After watching this movie for a few minutes I immediately thought of that book. Recall how the clones have Epilon, Delta, etc in their names - similar to the caste system in BNW. Scott 110 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus Huxley's last novel about a utopia is called . . . The Island !!! 76.105.183.62 ( talk) 18:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Why IS Huxley's Brave New World now mentioned here? It's listed under the section entitled "Controversies," though it makes no reference to any actual controversy. Pointing out that in the wikipedier's opinion they are similar without any citations to this being observed somewhere also sounds like
original research. I am removing this paragraph. --
Techgeist (
talk)
10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If the clones aren't aware of sex, then how did Lima One-Alpha become pregnant?
Ebb 20:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
"In a seperate room, Lincoln and Jordan find they are attracted to one another. Jordan starts to rub Lincoln's genitals faster and faster and he is excited from this. Lincoln grabs her breasts and this sparks a memory, the dream that is seen at the beginning where he sees a busty, beautiful, blond woman. This love scene was actually not censored in the deleted scenes. It was removed from the original screen version but was later put into the deleted scenes section of the DVD. "
Part of this was added by someone who also changed the year to 5001, so I think it's made up. S Sepp 08:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a comprehensive list of the futuristic elements of this movie and others with an array of images should be attached. The jet-bike would be an especially gnarly feature and it is the primary reason I wrote this.
Did anyone else find it odd that in 2019, most of the people are still driving vehicle models that were produce from around '05-'07? There are relatively few futuristic vehicles compared to the ones produced in the early 21st century.
Also, the film is not set in 2019, as one character makes reference to the 'genetics laws of 2050'.
He actually says, "...and in complience with the eugentic laws of two-thousand and fifteen(2050)..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taipan198 ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that I've seen The Island only once (and then at the cinema), I could be wrong but I seem to remember that each clone's classification corresponds with his or her age. However, the use of the phonetic alphabet in this classification doesn't correspond with the age difference between Lincoln Six-Echo and Jordan Two-Delta. IIRC, Lincoln is stated as being older than Jordan yet the 'echo' part of his classification comes after 'delta'. Anyone able to clarify this? -- 86.29.82.27 16:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, is it just me or does this section seem like its trying to write a paper on the inaccuracies of the film? It has a lot of loaded language and sounds like it's trying to prove a point of its own. Like Finally, a comment on aging and Dolly, the cloned sheep. and then rattles on about Dolly and aging and how that wouldn't be possible - yet ultimately admits the fact that the exact nature of aging today is unknown, and offers plausible explanations of its own. The whole premise of the movie is that it's in the future and possibly the process of aging is better known and able to be controlled. The point is it doesn't show whether or not the movie makes claims to science that in that modern world we have evidence to the contrary.
I'm not trying to defend the show or anything, I found a lot of the scientific aspects of the movie to be borderline -- but that's why I came to this article to look further into the accuracy of the movie. This section just feels like a college student's term paper, or something. I don't know, is anybody understanding what i'm trying to say? 69.124.143.230 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen this movie, but based on this summary and what people who have seen it have said, it sounds very similar to the novel The Experiment by John Darnton. Anybody with more knowledge care to comment? 70.16.57.154 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The police car with Lincoln and Jordan on board stoped in a crossroads just before the mercenary truck crashed it. I watched this sequence over and over again, still can't figure it out why the police car did that. It made itself a nice position to be crashed right in the center of the crossroads. It should not be because the traffic light. The light for its course cannot be seen but the light for the cross street is red. Besides, a Lexus CS from the movie Minority Report was just ahead of it and crossed the street. A screenshot here. It's an unimportant question anyway. -- Mato Rei 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice what seemed like some pretty heavy Christian right ideals being pushed in this movie? The unborn are people just like clones would be real people. The Ewan McGregor character at the end is going to die because "he had lots and lots of sex" outside of marriage. I don't know, I could be totally off here (especially since I haven't seen any other mention of this. But I am not making a value judgement one way or the other, just wondering if anyone else picked up on it. 160.39.251.174 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the clones are not allowed to touch each other and have their sex drives programmed away. It also seems to cast people who support cloning in an incredibly evil light. The clones escaping at the end, and ascending a hill dressed in white is eerily baptist (i suppose) Lordofhyperspace ( talk) 07:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That little piece of inside joshing about "only twelve scripts in Hollywood" in the trivia section is not backed up at all. I couldn't find it anywhere. Until someone backs it up with something I'm removing it. Funkbomb 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we expand on film loctions? I am very interested in finding out where the car park the 2 clones run though before jumping on the Mack truck is. -- Amckern ( talk) 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Pending verification and assertion of notability, I have moved the trivia below to the talk page;
Alastairward ( talk) 11:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the official web page http://www.wally.com/jumpch.asp?idChannel=44&idUser=0&attivo=2, the name of this yacht is "118 wallypower" and alternatively "118 WallyPower". This article states that the yacht is called "Wallypower 118", which should be changed IMHO. 195.212.29.187 ( talk) 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I just watched the film and tried to read the plot summary. The Plot is a little bit long here, and so I split it up into "Plot Summary" and "Plot Details". A plot summary should be a summary, so people, please keep it as tight as possible. Avoid (sub-) article creep!
Two points for discussion:
-- Otheus ( talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
update: Good work by User:Treybien to tighten up my plot summary, although a few of his changes are not in the flim version I saw. Further, I see no reason to delete the "detailed plot". The reference is the film, and consensus is allowed to summarize from the primary source. -- Otheus ( talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The "Detailed Plot Summary" section strikes me as completely unnecessary and a waste of space. The function of a plot section is simply to supply the basic outline of what happened, where, and to whom; if someone wants to know about every single scene, they can just see the movie. I would recommend that this section be deleted. Treybien 08:00, March 25, 2009 ( talk)
The Controversy section says:
Due to some points of similarity, some have accused the filmmakers of remaking the 1979 film, Parts: The Clonus Horror, without crediting that concept.[2] DreamWorks settled out of court for $1 million, the same amount the screenwriters were paid for the script.
The Lawsuit section says:
According to a 2007 interview with Clonus screenwriter Bob Sullivan, DreamWorks and Clonus' associates reached a seven-figure settlement on November 20, 2006, the specific terms of which are sealed.[9]
and the linked article doesn't clarify the amount either.
I think the $1 million needs to be cited, and the "specific terms of which are sealed" needs to be removed, or changed to say that's the official word, with a link to the same citation above. Basically, the two paragraphs are blatantly contradictory, and I don't have any way to tell which is true. Mattack ( talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I am looking that up right now... Incidentially, this was not the only lawsuit! The Red Queen ( talk) 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So a well meaning IP added a bit to the controversy section which I then "fixed" with refs from the relevant article, not realizing that the material was already present. I did some shuffling to account for this, which took far too many edits due to some serious reading failure on my part. If what I did sucks, feel free to revert back. But I do think having in all in one section like that makes more sense.
In doing all of this, I realized we have no source for the last paragraph in the section, related to the intended remake of Logan's Run. The writing for that bit feels really speculative on our part and I wanted to see what others thought before I just deleted it (I've done enough damage for one night).
Finally, I wanted to see what others thought about moving the Product placement section to Reaction or its Critical reception subsection. The nature of the text makes me think it would make more sense there. For that matter the controversy section might make more sense as a subsection of Reaction. Any thoughts before I just plow ahead? Millahnna ( talk) 08:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the film take place in 2019? I remember Dr. Merrick (played by Sean Bean) citing ethical/cloning laws of 2050 when he is selling the "product" to prospecting buyers.
So which is it? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed "but saw steadily diminishing domestic revenue during its seven week release period" under the Box office section. That is the pattern for nearly every wide-release movie in history and therefore does not deserve to be noted, nor does it relay anything unique to how it was a box office disappointment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.248.89 ( talk) 05:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is able to find a web-based copy of the Tessa Dick blog post that is referred to in this article, please include it as a citation and remove my explanatory text. It seems to have disappeared from the web (maybe for legal reasons?).--Soulparadox 07:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The page claims that the movie grossed 36 million U.S. and 127 million overseas for a total of 162 million worldwide. But 127 + 36 = 163! I do not know what the numbers are, though, so I cannot fix the faulty math. This is a relatively small problem, but it looks unprofessional, so perhaps could something be done about it? 65.94.103.243 ( talk) 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It could be pointed out that the film bears further obvious similarities with the films Coma (1977) and Logan's run (1976). -- 2003:71:4E6A:C949:199B:3FC4:AB38:2690 ( talk) 23:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Some footage from this film was later reused by Bay in Transformers 3. [1] Not sure if it is worth mention in the article, or where it would fit, but maybe someone else can add it? -- 109.79.81.27 ( talk) 12:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Island (2005 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Plot described in this stub is incorrect. someone should address that. I would, but unfortunately I don't have the patience for that.
There you go. I went by my memory of the original Parts, so there's a chance it's a wee bit off. But it's at least more accurate than it used to be.-- RiffRaff1138 01:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
There probably ought to be some mention of the fact that this is not an official re-make: the writing credits do not acknowledge any of the creative team from "Clonus". i.e. it's a ripoff job. Skyraider 5 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
This section, I feel, does not meet the standard of NPOV, especially with claims like this:
Towards the end of the movie there is to be a mass-execution of "defective" products. They are put into a large room marked "incinerator" and made to burn. This is a poignant and unavoidable reference to the Holocaust and the cremation of "defective" human beings.
As such, it is not an uncredited remake or a pure derivative work. Aside from these interesting elements, the utter destruction of the car-chases, the high-fall and the incinerator scene combined with the bright daylight cinematography and social satire stand out as unique to this misunderstood film.
The clones are older in Clonus, the escaped clone is befriended and aided in Clonus and most of satirical elements in the Island are not present in Clonus. Cinematically, there is no resemblence between the two.
The use of descriptors like "poignant" and "misunderstood" make it obvious this is not NPOV. I would also like to know exactly what is meant by "Cinematically, there is no resemblence [sic] between the two." Satan Rides a Bike 09:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the bit about "misunderstood", but that's not NPOV or orig. research. It am simply in agreement with the plethora of reviews on rottentomatoes.com etc. which say as much. I even wasted $20 on Clonus. "Cinematically" was intended to point out that there isn't any CGI, very few stunts, and nothing really of note from a movie-making standpoint that is in Clonus. It is unfortunate that the critics and some viewers and wikipedia contributors did not see everything Michael Bay tried to include. Is he to blame? I don't know. This article can mitigate to an extent, but I agree with Bay, the marketting had something to do with it. The movie did well in Korea, one of the biggest grossers of all time there. These are pretty much just facts you can check just by watching the movie and reading the reviews and this article. Jok2000 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
While watching the movie, I assumed the product placement was overdone on purpose. Isn't the movie saying that we are all merely bodies for work and control and consumption. - Acjelen 01:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I included a link to an article that explained the extensive product placement. Obviously, the companies pay to have their brand displayed- this source of income was needed to get the film financed.- Marikology
The section below was above the spolier notice, and it's rather spoilery... I was tryign to figure out where to merge it, and then thought it was somewhat of a trivial point to be included in the main article at all. If someone puts it back, though, please put it back in below the spoiler notice. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The "products'" names are determined by three factors; ex. Jordan Two-Delta
Did someone else find an influence of Logan's Run? -- Error 03:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else notice that Never let me go by British author Kazuo Ishiguro, even though it was published in the same year as the film was released, is extremely close in plot? Milliped 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the connection Merrick - Merck anything more than original research? For that matter, Joseph Merrick is the Elephant-Man. And David Merrick was not above lying to promote his business. -- Error 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
122,000,000 for a budget!!!???
Starkweather is described as "a tall and muscular African-American."
I haven't seen the movie, but based on the plot description in this article, America has nothing to do with the movie. Perhaps he should be labeled "a tall and muscular African-Utopian."
Or maybe we should just say he's black.
Or how about disposing with labels altogether? Wasn't that Dr. King's goal--that people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?
Sorry to bring "politics" into this, but calling him an "African-American" in this context seems silly to me...
cluth 06:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
User:129.120.168.146 added a section called plot holes:
I think this is POV, it might be possible to rewrite it NPOV, but it isn't a plot hole, so I've removed it from the article. It isn't unusual for fiction to leave parts of the story unexplained. Edward 10:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is more in line with insurance policies. You never know when you need it. And a glance at the other clones' stories, some of them have been in the "colony" for quite a long time. Why they haven't been picked for the "lottery" may be because there is no need for their parts yet. So, this suggests that some of the clones are made for eventualities. -- Destron Commander 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It's listed as a scientific inaccuracy that a full human clone would begin life in the form of a newborn baby, and not a middle-aged adult. This is true, however, I think the writers cleverly got around this by introducing those breast-implantesque sacs that contained-- hell, I duhhno, some sort of mutant embryo. I think if a clone were created from scratch, then they would be a newborn baby, but if half the human is already built before the sponsor's DNA is implimented then couldn't it be deemed possible (for the sake of science-fiction) that clones could be birthed as adults? I don't think it's an inaccuracy because they did throw in a psuedo-scientific explination that made sense. --Feb 16, 2005
Someone added a massive section in Scientific Accuracies and Inaccuracies that I think should be rewritten. It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, even though it does make some interesting points. Whoever feels the urge to reword that portion of the article, it is the first large paragraph. -- Smell? 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the whole section reads like a copyvio, especially this:
"When Sean Bean's character, Dr. Merrick, suggests that he was a year away from curing childhood leukemia, our truth sensors should be peaked"
-- 70.181.28.85 23:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The article contains content that conflicts with the Dolly the sheep wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep#Death "On February 14, 2003 it was announced that Dolly had a progressive lung disease. A necropsy confirmed she had sheep pulmonary adenomatosis, a fairly common disease of sheep. Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly being a clone, and that other sheep on the farm had similar ailments. Such lung diseases are especially a danger for sheep kept indoors, as Dolly had to be for security reasons." --User ID: 214405 24:44, 28 January 2006
I think that this plot is too detailed. Grammar can be improved and the story can be narrated without getting into such minor situations as the food they had or the bathingsuit they were wearing. The effort is to be appreciated though. I would do it myself if had the time, I´ll see what I can do. Laurentis 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)laurentis
Why isn't Huxley's Brave New World mentioned anywhere in this article? After watching this movie for a few minutes I immediately thought of that book. Recall how the clones have Epilon, Delta, etc in their names - similar to the caste system in BNW. Scott 110 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus Huxley's last novel about a utopia is called . . . The Island !!! 76.105.183.62 ( talk) 18:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Why IS Huxley's Brave New World now mentioned here? It's listed under the section entitled "Controversies," though it makes no reference to any actual controversy. Pointing out that in the wikipedier's opinion they are similar without any citations to this being observed somewhere also sounds like
original research. I am removing this paragraph. --
Techgeist (
talk)
10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If the clones aren't aware of sex, then how did Lima One-Alpha become pregnant?
Ebb 20:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
"In a seperate room, Lincoln and Jordan find they are attracted to one another. Jordan starts to rub Lincoln's genitals faster and faster and he is excited from this. Lincoln grabs her breasts and this sparks a memory, the dream that is seen at the beginning where he sees a busty, beautiful, blond woman. This love scene was actually not censored in the deleted scenes. It was removed from the original screen version but was later put into the deleted scenes section of the DVD. "
Part of this was added by someone who also changed the year to 5001, so I think it's made up. S Sepp 08:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a comprehensive list of the futuristic elements of this movie and others with an array of images should be attached. The jet-bike would be an especially gnarly feature and it is the primary reason I wrote this.
Did anyone else find it odd that in 2019, most of the people are still driving vehicle models that were produce from around '05-'07? There are relatively few futuristic vehicles compared to the ones produced in the early 21st century.
Also, the film is not set in 2019, as one character makes reference to the 'genetics laws of 2050'.
He actually says, "...and in complience with the eugentic laws of two-thousand and fifteen(2050)..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taipan198 ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that I've seen The Island only once (and then at the cinema), I could be wrong but I seem to remember that each clone's classification corresponds with his or her age. However, the use of the phonetic alphabet in this classification doesn't correspond with the age difference between Lincoln Six-Echo and Jordan Two-Delta. IIRC, Lincoln is stated as being older than Jordan yet the 'echo' part of his classification comes after 'delta'. Anyone able to clarify this? -- 86.29.82.27 16:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, is it just me or does this section seem like its trying to write a paper on the inaccuracies of the film? It has a lot of loaded language and sounds like it's trying to prove a point of its own. Like Finally, a comment on aging and Dolly, the cloned sheep. and then rattles on about Dolly and aging and how that wouldn't be possible - yet ultimately admits the fact that the exact nature of aging today is unknown, and offers plausible explanations of its own. The whole premise of the movie is that it's in the future and possibly the process of aging is better known and able to be controlled. The point is it doesn't show whether or not the movie makes claims to science that in that modern world we have evidence to the contrary.
I'm not trying to defend the show or anything, I found a lot of the scientific aspects of the movie to be borderline -- but that's why I came to this article to look further into the accuracy of the movie. This section just feels like a college student's term paper, or something. I don't know, is anybody understanding what i'm trying to say? 69.124.143.230 07:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen this movie, but based on this summary and what people who have seen it have said, it sounds very similar to the novel The Experiment by John Darnton. Anybody with more knowledge care to comment? 70.16.57.154 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The police car with Lincoln and Jordan on board stoped in a crossroads just before the mercenary truck crashed it. I watched this sequence over and over again, still can't figure it out why the police car did that. It made itself a nice position to be crashed right in the center of the crossroads. It should not be because the traffic light. The light for its course cannot be seen but the light for the cross street is red. Besides, a Lexus CS from the movie Minority Report was just ahead of it and crossed the street. A screenshot here. It's an unimportant question anyway. -- Mato Rei 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice what seemed like some pretty heavy Christian right ideals being pushed in this movie? The unborn are people just like clones would be real people. The Ewan McGregor character at the end is going to die because "he had lots and lots of sex" outside of marriage. I don't know, I could be totally off here (especially since I haven't seen any other mention of this. But I am not making a value judgement one way or the other, just wondering if anyone else picked up on it. 160.39.251.174 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the clones are not allowed to touch each other and have their sex drives programmed away. It also seems to cast people who support cloning in an incredibly evil light. The clones escaping at the end, and ascending a hill dressed in white is eerily baptist (i suppose) Lordofhyperspace ( talk) 07:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That little piece of inside joshing about "only twelve scripts in Hollywood" in the trivia section is not backed up at all. I couldn't find it anywhere. Until someone backs it up with something I'm removing it. Funkbomb 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we expand on film loctions? I am very interested in finding out where the car park the 2 clones run though before jumping on the Mack truck is. -- Amckern ( talk) 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Pending verification and assertion of notability, I have moved the trivia below to the talk page;
Alastairward ( talk) 11:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the official web page http://www.wally.com/jumpch.asp?idChannel=44&idUser=0&attivo=2, the name of this yacht is "118 wallypower" and alternatively "118 WallyPower". This article states that the yacht is called "Wallypower 118", which should be changed IMHO. 195.212.29.187 ( talk) 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I just watched the film and tried to read the plot summary. The Plot is a little bit long here, and so I split it up into "Plot Summary" and "Plot Details". A plot summary should be a summary, so people, please keep it as tight as possible. Avoid (sub-) article creep!
Two points for discussion:
-- Otheus ( talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
update: Good work by User:Treybien to tighten up my plot summary, although a few of his changes are not in the flim version I saw. Further, I see no reason to delete the "detailed plot". The reference is the film, and consensus is allowed to summarize from the primary source. -- Otheus ( talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The "Detailed Plot Summary" section strikes me as completely unnecessary and a waste of space. The function of a plot section is simply to supply the basic outline of what happened, where, and to whom; if someone wants to know about every single scene, they can just see the movie. I would recommend that this section be deleted. Treybien 08:00, March 25, 2009 ( talk)
The Controversy section says:
Due to some points of similarity, some have accused the filmmakers of remaking the 1979 film, Parts: The Clonus Horror, without crediting that concept.[2] DreamWorks settled out of court for $1 million, the same amount the screenwriters were paid for the script.
The Lawsuit section says:
According to a 2007 interview with Clonus screenwriter Bob Sullivan, DreamWorks and Clonus' associates reached a seven-figure settlement on November 20, 2006, the specific terms of which are sealed.[9]
and the linked article doesn't clarify the amount either.
I think the $1 million needs to be cited, and the "specific terms of which are sealed" needs to be removed, or changed to say that's the official word, with a link to the same citation above. Basically, the two paragraphs are blatantly contradictory, and I don't have any way to tell which is true. Mattack ( talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I am looking that up right now... Incidentially, this was not the only lawsuit! The Red Queen ( talk) 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So a well meaning IP added a bit to the controversy section which I then "fixed" with refs from the relevant article, not realizing that the material was already present. I did some shuffling to account for this, which took far too many edits due to some serious reading failure on my part. If what I did sucks, feel free to revert back. But I do think having in all in one section like that makes more sense.
In doing all of this, I realized we have no source for the last paragraph in the section, related to the intended remake of Logan's Run. The writing for that bit feels really speculative on our part and I wanted to see what others thought before I just deleted it (I've done enough damage for one night).
Finally, I wanted to see what others thought about moving the Product placement section to Reaction or its Critical reception subsection. The nature of the text makes me think it would make more sense there. For that matter the controversy section might make more sense as a subsection of Reaction. Any thoughts before I just plow ahead? Millahnna ( talk) 08:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Does the film take place in 2019? I remember Dr. Merrick (played by Sean Bean) citing ethical/cloning laws of 2050 when he is selling the "product" to prospecting buyers.
So which is it? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed "but saw steadily diminishing domestic revenue during its seven week release period" under the Box office section. That is the pattern for nearly every wide-release movie in history and therefore does not deserve to be noted, nor does it relay anything unique to how it was a box office disappointment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.248.89 ( talk) 05:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is able to find a web-based copy of the Tessa Dick blog post that is referred to in this article, please include it as a citation and remove my explanatory text. It seems to have disappeared from the web (maybe for legal reasons?).--Soulparadox 07:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The page claims that the movie grossed 36 million U.S. and 127 million overseas for a total of 162 million worldwide. But 127 + 36 = 163! I do not know what the numbers are, though, so I cannot fix the faulty math. This is a relatively small problem, but it looks unprofessional, so perhaps could something be done about it? 65.94.103.243 ( talk) 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It could be pointed out that the film bears further obvious similarities with the films Coma (1977) and Logan's run (1976). -- 2003:71:4E6A:C949:199B:3FC4:AB38:2690 ( talk) 23:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Some footage from this film was later reused by Bay in Transformers 3. [1] Not sure if it is worth mention in the article, or where it would fit, but maybe someone else can add it? -- 109.79.81.27 ( talk) 12:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)