Talk:The Island (2005 film)

Film B‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)

The movie isn't an unoffical remake or a rip-off job at all. -Acjelen 01:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.--RiffRaff1138 01:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Acjelen, have you seen both films? It's pretty blatant. 24.195.22.63 16:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I watched Parts: the Clonus Horror the other night (thanks Netflix!). There are many disturbing similarities to The Island in the first act, though some of the differences are notable. Nonetheless, in the second and third acts the two movies are completely different. I admit that the premise of the two films seem to be the same, the plot, tone, production, and other elements are very different. -Acjelen 18:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism and references to other films

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry, but those four points used to justify the fact that The Island is in no way ripped off from Clonus are far too tenuous. Yes, it should be acknowledged that there are similarites between the two film and any controversy that may have arisen because of this, but leave it at that. --86.29.82.27 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Product placement

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)[reply]

So they're criticizing runaway commercialism by engaging in it? Skyraider 21:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting in the cinema, I wondered why the companies agreed to participate it was so obscene. -Acjelen 02:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spoilers

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)[reply]

Names of the "products"

The "products'" names are determined by three factors; ex. Jordan Two-Delta

Jordan : The last name of their "sponsor".
Two: The geographic area that the "sponsor" lives in.
Delta: The generation the products were manufactured.

If true, should go in main article. 220.245.180.130 06:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to be correct.

Logan's Run

Did someone else find an influence of Logan's Run? --Error 03:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The influence of Logan's Run is clear. However, in Logan's Run, sex is free, while the clones are prevented from even touching each other. Logan's Run drew on Baby Boomers fear of growing old (or, rather, turning 30), while the The Island draws on our fear of being nothing but soulless cogs, only meat and/or consumers. At the end of both movies, the people are brought out into the light and open and the truth is revealed to them. -Acjelen 03:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well observed. --Error 05:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never Let me Go

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)[reply]

Merck

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)[reply]

122,000,000 for a budget!!!???

African-Utopian?

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)[reply]

Just thought I'd mention that I saw the movie on the airplane ride home from L.A. last week. I think my original point is still valid... cluth 10:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, I'll remove it. --Viriditas 10:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America does have to do with the story, it is clear they are in America when Lincoln points to an American highway sign after they escape. Also an American map is used in the film. Minami-chan 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WHOLE MOVIE is based in America. The "utopian" complex is in an old nuclear missile silo in Nevada. From there, they go to Los Angeles, etc. Calling him "African-American" also lends insight into the fact that there is still an outside world, thus assisting in Lincon Six Echo's doubts about everything. --CanesOL79 20:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plot hole

User:129.120.168.146 added a section called plot holes:

The introduction of Sarah Jordan's child is a stark contrast to the idea that all of the clones' lives being ended is the result of selfish indulgence by their sponsors. Sarah Jordan was injured through no fault of her own (that we are told) and in critical condition, and would need her clone to save her life. While the child looking at the video screen and recognizing Jordan's face is a poignant moment, the fallout to Sarah Jordan's assured death is never explained, and the orphaning of an innocent child by Jordan Two-Delta's actions is conveniently ignored.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Updates to Scientific Accuracies and Inaccuracies

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Plot summary or detailed transcription?

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[reply]

I'm going to be editing the plot; it is most certainly far too detailed for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I plan on improving the article to satisfy myself. It is currently, and unforunately, full of unnecessary detail, useless external links, terrible grammar, and questionable context. Other than that, I believe the editors who created the article did a decent job, as it explains the film's North American appeal as a whole. –Cruz AFade ^{(Speak about it} | ^{How many?)} 16:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been framed so I can no longer apply the copy-edit of the article I was hoping for. 64.231.118.31 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some tinkering to the plot, not changing a lot, but I agree it is too detailed and grammar could be improved.Marikology 05:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Also, I removed some details I'm usure about- I'm pretty sure Tom Lincoln was dying of some sexually-transmitted disease, not liver failure as stated in the original. Also, the article says at the beginning the facility was in Arizona, but at the end says Nevada. But it's 1 AM and I'm not going downstairs to get my dvd and check, lol, so feel free to edit in these details. Marikology 06:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does one know where the film began shooting? I had assumed Los Angeles, but I don't think I'm right. Any knowledge on this topic? –Cruz Along ^{(Speak about it | How many?)} 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A portion of the film was shot in Los Angeles. I apologize for not being clear enough earlier. Does anyone know if the film was shot anywhere else as well? –Cruz Along ^{(Speak about it | How many?)} 18:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It began shooting in Detroit, Michigan. The first shooting day was October 28, 2004. - DoubleCross 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the plot is too lengthy for an encyclopedic entry about The Island. It needs to be shortened to two or three paragraphs. --Erik 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the plot as best as possible, although I'm sure it could be reduced further. I basically rewrote the plot to contain the essential information of the storyline. Things like Lincoln and Jordan making love, details of them escaping from the mercenaries, and other tidbits were deleted. --Erik 00:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brave New World

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)[reply]

Sex?

If the clones aren't aware of sex, then how did Lima One-Alpha become pregnant?

Ebb 20:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ASSUME she was fertilized by the husband of her sponsor, probably injected her (I know that's not the correct terminology but you know what I mean) with or without her consent (a character referenced that some of the people are 'breeders'). I assumed this lady was cloned so she could have the child for the sponsor and her husband. She almost certainly did not have sex with her sponsors husband :) Oreo man 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

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)[reply]

A Comprehensive Futuristic Vehicle List

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.