Talk:The Fountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is not a forum! This is not a forum for discussing personal interpretations of The Fountain that do not help clarify the article itself.
Any such messages will be deleted.
Good articles The Fountain (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Fountain article.
To-do list for The Fountain: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand lead paragraph
  • Try to update Cast section with recent news articles about film
  • Expand Reception section with positive and negative criticism

Contents

[edit] US release date

"has a scheduled US release date of September 7." Wait, where does this information come from? On IMDB, they're still unsure of a release date, and at the-numbers.com they're saying october 2006. -Impeal

I got that information from the offical teaser trailer that was on Apple's website.--V3rt1g0 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That's strange. I just rewatched the trailer, and it simply says "2006" at the end. Since the-numbers is saying october, and a recent Sci Fi Article said it'd most likely be october, I went ahead and edited the main article. -Impeal
Interesting that's for sure. I watched the trailer right before I made the edit (check history for that date). They must have "re-released" the trailer with a bit more release date ambiguity for some reason. I'm fine with not putting the 7 Sept date in the article anymore as it seems to not be "set in stone" yet. Cheers! --V3rt1g0 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rings

The current article says, "He tattoos his arms with rings to reflect the number of years he had been traveling in deep space, quite similarly to tree rings." However, in the film we see him look at the tattoo of his wedding ring, and then the camera pans up to the other rings. He says something like, "there have been so many but you, Izzy, were the first". This seems to me to mean that each of the rings, like the first on his finger, represent other loves he has had over the past several hundred years, and not the number of years he has been traveling in space. This would also explain why some of the rings were thicker than others.--Daniel 05:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"He tattoos his arms with rings to reflect the number of years he had been traveling in deep space" is clearly personal interpretation of the meaning of the rings and should be removed. There is no clear evidence for the time-period the Space scenes take place, any such claim hence, is personal interpretation.
They do seem to represent the passage of time, either marked out in loves as suggested by the OP or years. We can certainly infer that the scene in Space is the far future (or a dream of the far future) since the technology used to make a self-sustained bubble spaceship with flexible edges isn't exactly in use today. We could probably change the phrase to be more ambiguous, such as simply "to reflect the passage of time," but we certainly shouldn't throw out the reference to tree rings. I think that's very significant to the imagery. Edit: The current version ("He tattoos his arms to mark the passage of time, possibly denoting years elapsed since his space-flight and/or the death of his wife; the inked patterns are evocative of tree rings.") seems satisfactory // Montag 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The exact line (verified from an, er, temporary digital capture) is "All these years, all these memories, there's been you... You pulled me through time." This could mean several different things, of course, but I would not automatically take it as a reference to other romantic involvements. Sskoog 20:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creo or Verde?

What's the main character's last name? On this page, it's Creo, but on Hugh Jackman's page (specifically, his filmography) it says it's Verde. Also, on IMDB it also lists the character's name as being Verde. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MajorCOW (talk • contribs) 21:19, September 23, 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding of the film so far, "Creo" refers to the 16th century conquistador, where "Verde" refers to the 21st century scientist. I'm not sure about the 26th century astronaut; it seems that his name is "Verde" as well, but I could be wrong. --Erik 01:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
On Izzy's Gravestone it says Creo, so I assume the present tense version of Tommy is Creo.

Mike 00:37, 25 November 2006 (eastern time)

[edit] Cast template?

What is the preferred cast template to use in film articles? Is there a template promoted by WikiProject Films to use? I noticed that the template for this article's cast was changed to another one I've seen on other film articles, but it's been reverted. Erik 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction

"However, more mature responses from the screening have been overwhelmingly positive, comparing the film to 2001: A Space Odyssey" This seems a) POV ("more mature") and b) the references (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24379 and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/usercomments-5) in support aren't that great. I've remove these for the moment. Hope that's ok. shellac 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Your change is fine. I think it's best to wait for the actual release before going into detail about its reception. I'm going to restore the reference for the audience booing, though. --Erik 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

The plot is nonsense. Im not talking about the actual plot of the film, rather the text itself. Is he a millenium old or 500 years? What is a "tree of Izzy"? How did his wife become a tree? "...grant eternal life to those who drink its sap which is in a novel by Izzi (Rachel Weisz)"? What does this mean? His wife wrote a book that tells about this tree sap? It makes no sense. Quase 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite it. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't really know what goes on in it. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
saw the film last night. whilst the film never states it explicitly, it is inferred that the tree is indeed Izzy's body, with Izzy's soul allegedly inhabiting the nebula. when in the hospital, Izzy tells Tommy a story that her guide from her trip to Mexico told her. the guide had said that, though his father was dead, he was no longer buried, because they had planted the seed of a tree over his grave. the roots had grown into his father, his body growing into the wood. at the end of the movie, after Tommy burns up in the nova, we see Izzy pick a seed off of a tree(one of those round cherry-stem-with-spikes kind) and hand it(green) to Tommy. we then see it in Tommys hands(dead and withered now), and he plants it over Izzy's grave.
as for the millenium/500 years question, the entire Thomas the Conquistador story is the plot of a book written by Izzy, which she asks Tommy to finish after her death. from Tommy's reactions, and the fact that he didn't immediately go for that "Guatemalan tree" that he used on Donovan, it seems unlikely that this is an actual story about Izzy and Tommy as opposed to fictional analogues. the scenes taking place in the present have the most apparent reality to them, being the story that links the future and the past. as for the future, that is up for discussion. there are those who believe that the future is real, and then there are those who feel that the future is really the last chapter that Tommy wrote, his way of dealing with the grief. both are valid thoughts, have fairly reasonable arguments, and Aaronofsky himself has made no moves to offer either as definitive.--Stickmangrit 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Since that last scene where Tommy does actually go on the walk with Izzy are in his head as he rewrote the past and did what he ought to have originally, I took the connection between Izzy and the tree to be that Tommy had planted a seed to the tree they had discovered in the rainforests (the tree of life, essentially). He would have access to it (and the seed) as they used it on Donovan the chimp. So in that way, Izzy would have become the tree, and hence the secret to Tommy's immortality. Aristoi 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it best to avoid even the discussion of individual interpretations, inasmuch as is possible -- the final fadeout whisper (described as some as an 'exhale,' and indeed it sounds like an exhale) contains the exchange "I finished it." "Is everything all right?" "Yes, everything's all right." Sskoog 21:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPAA Rating

This section seems unnecessary, as it was mentioned in the section before it, and i haven't seen the mpaa rating included in other articles on wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.162.186 (talk • contribs) 18:56, November 8, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll get rid of the sections and make the MPAA rating fit. Some film articles do have them, but it's generally not added because the rating is U.S.-based. There are some articles about films that contain rating tables for various countries, though. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Izzi or Izzy?

Both Izzi and Izzy were used in references to the wife dying from cancer, does anyone know which one it is? btg2290 12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording is slightly confusing and the words are very similar but yea, forget it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btg2290 (talk • contribs) 08:59, November 9, 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't remember what it was, the name on her tombstone is probably the most "official" reference. Aldrenean 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Definitely was Izzi. Credits reflected Isabel / Izzi Creo. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book on The Fountain

There is a book by director Darren Aronofsky titled "The Fountain" about the film's production. It's supposed to be "an extension of Aronofsky's cinematic vision, and will contain production stills of the film's stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, original script, original art, and observations from creators Ari Handel and Darren Aronofsky". The book's supposed to be published this month (November), so if anyone picks up the book, feel free to include any new information in the article. I recommend using the Cite book template to cite the added information. Also, the book's ISBN is 978-0-7893-1495-6 (0-7893-1495-9), according to the first link. Not sure which set of numbers is relevant. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for possible use

Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot section

I edited the synopsis for accuracy, and also clarified in a new section (flow)that two of the three timelines are non-literal (a fantasy of Jackman's character). This is clear because in the modern-day timeline, he accepts her death following a realization made in his future-fantasy... The 16th-century timeline is fantasy since he ultimtely is consumed by vegetation (obviously not a condition from which one recovers to later become a biochemist/surgeon). The studio synopsis leaves potential moviegoers/readers with the impression of a multi-era chronology/oddysey... this is more than merely misleading, and it results in a terrible experience. An informed audience might enjoy the fim better by knowing not to take the 16th-century and 26th-century settings as literal (which is later revealed to have been a waste of mental energy). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.32.20 (talk • contribs) 03:27, November 23, 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. The reason I did this was that you specifically used phrases from the official synopsis for the film (originally labeled as such). The phrases were presented to be written by you, which qualifies as plagiarism. If you can re-write the information you added with different terminology, then it would be acceptable. Also, the Flow section was unnecessary because it was too little information to warrant its own section. I suggest you add the description in new wording and try to present the flow information in that wording, too. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the edit to avoid any such plagiarism, but making clear that the plotline and its flow are not a literal chronology, or even a literal non-linear story (as in Pulp Fiction). I just saw this movie, and the studio's promotional trailers and synopsis (IMHO) misrepresent the movie and make it impossible to comprehend. At the end of the movie, we finally get the straight scoop that the future scenes were a dream, she really really is dead, and he really does say goodbye and accept it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.32.20 (talk • contribs) 03:53, November 23, 2006 (UTC)

The Plot section seems fine for the moment, but I'd like to expand it with more detail, such as Tommy's actions in researching for a cure instead of spending time with Izzi. The tricky aspect of doing this is that the film is extremely nonlinear, and the overlapping narratives have different levels of realism. I don't trust my memory enough to expand the Plot section, though. Also, what indicates that the futuristic narrative was a dream? I understand that would be why Thomas has the ring at the end, but there seemed to be realistic ties to the present -- immortality would be achieved with the new scientific discovery, and the tree in the biospherical ship would have been harvested from Guzetti's farm (based on the concept of the First Father's sacrifice). I don't want to venture into general discussion about the film, but I want to make sure the article was presenting the information accurately. There could be different interpretations of how things are tied together (especially narrative transition scenes). --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 08:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Plot is fine, good plot descriptions are usually small here in wikipedia (for a good example see the blade runner article, for a horrible example see the War of The World article). Indulgent phrases such as "complex multi-threaded epic" deffinately must be re-written to sound less like a promotion of the film and more like an sober description, we should not work with assumptions or fancruft here.
I disagree with labeling any time periods as specifically as 16th and 26th century, as those are not evident at all from the movie itself, but from the misrepresentative marketing. The Conquistador era is clearly in the past. However, the scenes of the space travel are ambigious as to whether they transpire in the far future or the span between Izzy's death and Tommy planting the scene, and conversly, whether or not they are real or metaphorical representation of Tommy's inner turmoil. Hence, I also do not think it is evident that the Future Tommy is the same person as Present Tommy, which the current wording suggests.
On dates, I'd recommend trying to find some source other than purely promotional that state the time periods the film takes place in, preferably from Aronofsky himself. On your other claims, we would have to do a strict analysis of the base filmic reality in relation to each story to find out which is most real and which is least real. I'd also recommend research first here since that analysis would be long, boring, and probably too picky to be useful. Hopefully at some point Aronofsky has slipped and said, "Oh, it's all just a dream anyway," which would make our work a lot easier. Should we consider information from The Fountain graphic novel in this as well as possible differing official interpretations from people involved in production (i.e., Aronofsky thinks one thing, the writer thinks another, the producer another)?// Montag 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be fine with the removal of the dates, as the film did not indicate a specific time period. We can call the periods by other names, such as the period of the Spanish Inquisition (might be too assumptive), contemporary time period, future time period. Also, Aronofsky let Kent Williams interpret the story for himself, so this interpretation may not be what Aronofsky had in mind for the film that he eventually made. I suggest keeping the graphic novel noncanon. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


There was some earlier controversy about the final 'exhale' -- upon repeated review, I note the specific whispered words to be "I finished it." "Is everything all right?" "Yes, everything's all right." No removals, simply clarification. Sskoog 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SciFi???

I don't know what this movie is described as a SciFi movie. There is no science at all. The story, to search for the Tree of Life, was not based on any science, even pseudo ones. In the movie, it was clearly said that it was based on supersticious and religious beliefs and documents. I would say that this move is a spritual drama, rather than a SciFi. --Mongol 01:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The film is marketed as a science fiction film, which is why it's labeled as such. The Fountain is one of these movies that could fall into a few categories -- spirituality, drama, romance, etc. There are some aspects of science fiction, such as the longevity resulting from the results with Donovan, and the biospherical ship is meant to be a unique take on ships in science fiction. Aronofsky's said a couple of times that a spaceship would not look like a truck. If you look at how Aronofsky came up with the idea for the film, he wanted to "reinvent" science fiction and have a different approach. I think even though it's marketed as a science fiction film, there's enough information in the article to show that it covers a wide range of topics, especially in the Themes and influences section. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that people usually think that science fiction involves phasers and lasers and robots, or the future. Heres the proper description of Sci-Fi (actually taken from here) : "Science fiction (often called sci-fi or SF) is a popular genre of fiction in which the narrative world differs from our own present or historical reality in at least one significant way.[1] This difference may be technological, physical, historical, sociological, philosophical, metaphysical, etc, but not magical (see Fantasy).". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.172.112 (talk • contribs) 10:10, November 24, 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the film's been marketed as a sci-fi film, and the origin of this project was based on reinventing science fiction (according to Aronofsky). The Fountain is a lot of other things as well, and I think the article reflects that it's not really a sci-fi film with phasers and lasers and robots. For the record, add your signature to your comments at the end by typing four tildes (~) in a row. It'll insert your IP address and the date. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Seemed to me there was a scientific basis for how the tree restored youth, and for how the tree itself would be restored.... it was just not explained. //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia does a good job of making sure that there are things like "No Original Research" or other such policies in place. Just because this movie may be self-declared sci-fi, doesn't reinforce the case for this movie being sci-fi. As a sci-fi fan, I don't see this movie as science fiction at all, and I don't believe it should be classed as such. I guess it's a bit like a rodent going around saying "IM A LIZARD TRYING TO REINVENT YOUR IDEA OF WHAT A LIZARD IS. IM FURRY AND CUDDLY, BUT TRUST ME, IM A LIZARD!" and everyone else saying "Well, he says hes a lizard, so even though it looks like he's a rodent, he must be a lizard."--Jeff 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've de-categorized The Fountain in the initial sentence of the lead paragraph. If labeling it as sci-fi is going to cause some concern, the article can suffice without that description off the bat and instead leave it up to the reader just what genres The Fountain has based on the content. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Now its worse than before, it was far better under the tag of sci-fi than in its current "explores the themes of life, love, death, rebirth and the ageless quest for immortality", thats no movie genre!, little details such as those muse be avoided, until theres no real backing from any source that the movie indeed explores all such themes, it must be removed. This article is far more understandable with the sober description "sci-fi". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.169.56 (talk • contribs) 00:53, November 29, 2006 (UTC)
Son... the official synopsis says "life, love, death, and rebirth". And if you even bothered to read the Themes and influences section, GIPU, you'd see that immortality was a theme in the film. The Fountain is more than just science fiction. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
oh the fancruft... more than science fiction??... jesus, you are seriously lacking objetivity here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.169.56 (talk • contribs) 01:05, November 29, 2006 (UTC)
Hey, dude... insert your signature by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your comments. I'm tired of inserting it for you. And maybe you didn't see me quote the official synopsis -- "life, love, death, and rebirth" are themes that aren't solely science fiction-based. Ain't no bloody fancruft here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I see its still there, i still dont truly understand your reassons, in fact i find them poor at best. You say that the "official synopsis" says so, and so it must be cannon... BUT, if it was for that, then the straight to dvd movie "Carlito's way: rise to power" could not be labeled as simply drama or gangster movie, no, instead it would be re-labeled into "the gripping tale of the early years of gangster legend Carlito Brigante" because thats the "official synopsis", "Big Mommas House 2" would not be a simple comedy, no, no, cos the OFFICIAL synopsis says its the "mother of all comedies". Every official synopsis has its shamelss share of praise, to always try to separate the movie from others, to get to YOU to go the theater to watch that movie... its called "advertising" my son, hope its not much of a shocker to you. Here i found another one thats pretty indulgent "The Fountain is a 2006 film directed by Darren Aronofsky that explores the themes of life, love, death, rebirth and the ageless quest for immortality", boy that Fountain movie must be really good if it doesnt have a genre to describe it, i better go see it today (which was probably what went through the publicists minds when comming up with ideas on how to promote the movie). The other excuse to keep holding the indulgent label at the start was that silly me did not bother read the "Themes" part, cos thats were The Fountain truly sets apart from other movies, it has themes... even Star Wars has a themes section here in wikipedia! (and two other articles that are also about the themes in the movie), yet the sober description "sci-fi" seems to suit better than "a film that explores the dichotomy of good and evil with parallels in religion, mythology and lasers". Now Blade Runner, now there's a legendary film, and a damn well written article (it is a featured article), for years the thematic complexity of the film has been debated not only among fans, but also between philosophers and even scientists (even the matrix has been debated by philosophers), yet its article doesnt state that the movie "explores existentialism and the moral implications of genetic engeneering in a dystopian future", instead the featured article says its a "sci-fi" movie. I gave the description of what was Sci-fi, a few posts above, and it seems it suits The Foutain properly.--201.215.169.56 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for inserting your signature. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been a valuable (if occasionally-histrionic) discussion. Keeping as strictly factual as is possible with such an abstract/ambiguous cinematic work, I deem these two notions as qualifiers for the sci-fi genre -- (a) the space-exploration of stellar phenomenae containing otherworldly energies (possibly the souls of departed Mayan ancestors) and (b) a Guatemalan botanical extract whose enzyme-receptors mesh with mammalian cellular structures "like lovers, woman on top" to halt the aging process. Further, Aronofsky himself has publicly stated a desire "to re-invent the science fiction genre" with this film; I think we have to consider it science-fiction (possibly among other things). Sskoog 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Im amazed that with all the fancruft-like sentences that this article has it currently holds a GA status, this article may have up to 50 references, but it still lacks too much.--Kessingler 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Izzy's Book

I Believe that the entire 16th century conquistador story thread was simply the plot of the Book (The Fountain) that Izzi was writing. Before seeing the movie, I assumed that the conquistador found the fountain (tree) of youth and was now a biochemist fitting in with modern society. But this cannot be, as neither Tom nor Izzy have any recollection of their former lives as conquistadors or queens. Also, what is mentioned of the plot of Izzy's book is exactly the same as the 16th century sequences of the movie. On the other hand, Tom reacts in a somewhat startled way after reading Izzy's book. He also sees Queen Isabella in his visions in the biosphere. That shiny gold stuff was cool.

considering Thomas was consumed by flowers growing out of his body in the end, i think it's safe to say he didn't go on to become a major bio-chemist/oncologist.Stickmangrit 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be true only if the ring didn't tie the Conquistador story to the present day story and if rebirth wasn't an extremely central concept in the film. At most, you can only say that relationship is ambiguous, and this should be reflected in the article. // Montag 19:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayan mysticism

I linked the phrase Mayan mysticism to the Maya mythology article, but I didn't see the specific myths described in the movie recounted in the article -- are those actual Mayan myths, or something made up for the film? //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The movie presents Mayan mysticism/mythology in a pretty straightforward manner, especially about how the First Father sacrificed himself to create his world and how his leftover head was hung to be Xibalba, the underworld. The Themes and influences section have things that would not necessarily be explained in the movie, such as Jackman's viewing of the brain surgery to get into the mindset of his character. I'll see what I can add, though... 'cause it would be original research to connect the dots. Would be better to expand information on mysticism from interviews and such... take a look at the "Citations for possible use" above, maybe there's something there. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I meant to say that this is not presented in the Maya mythology article.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I understand what you mean. It's either that the filmmakers put a spin on the Mayan aspects, or that the article just isn't complete with all the information about Maya mythology. I think it's more likely to be the latter, since the sources seem to reflect that research was done to film The Fountain, including talking to tour guides. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 08:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Interpretations

Following the template suggested by 2001: A Space Odyssey's Wikipedia page many moons ago, I have inserted a fledgeling section dealing with possible meaning(s) and interrelation(s) between the three narratives (16th century, 21st century, 26th century), attempting to steer (mostly) clear of 'original research' but not quite succeeding. Would appreciate edits/enhancements to this section, as opposed to simple brusque deletion; this seems a pivotal film-centric concept in the same vein as 2001's monolith imagery. Sskoog 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No. What you wrote was original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. The only thing that would be acceptable would be the quotation at the end of the section by Aronofsky leaving the film up for interpretation, and that one needs citation as well. This does not mean Wikipedia editors get to share their idea of the interpretation in this article. Interpretations must be drawn from reliable sources instead, such as a movie review from an independent, published source, and not made up on the spot. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
And don't say "brusque" to make it sound like it's wrong to delete speculation. Personal interpretation should not be used as a placeholder. -Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want an Interpretations section, you would need to cite reliable sources (not forums or fan sites) that have shared their interpretations of the film. I've noticed that the positive reviews for The Fountain generally try to interpret the film (where negative reviews don't even bother), so I suggest bringing together various sources to create a legitimate, well-cited section that outlines just how The Fountain can be perceived without crossing into original research at all. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a challenge with newly-released media -- as you point out in your user talk page, the first available 'reviews' tend to be blog/vanity-site babble. I have a [decent] cite for the Rubik's cube quote, am still fishing around for the others (Ebert is recovering from surgery, as fate would have it). Not that it is currently on your watchlist, but do you consider 2001's Wiki-site to be out of compliance based on these criteria?
I appreciate your revisiting this issue, btw. For the record [though I want to focus on the work here], 'brusque' is all about attitude and treatment (e.g., SMITE in all caps), and has only the slightest relevance to the physical act of reversion or deletion. Sskoog 27 November 2006
You'll have to pardon my attitude when it comes to uncited information. I'm a bit hardened from dealing with rampant acts of speculative information being edited into upcoming film articles (such as Spider-Man 3). I understand that you mean well, and I think an Interpretations section would be a good idea if cited strongly. I've nominated this film article for Good Article status, and uncited perspectives would not help its nomination, you know? I'd suggest using Rotten Tomatoes as a source since it aggregates movie reviews. I'd also suggest choosing movie reviews linked from that Rotten Tomatoes site that are printed by newspapers online (e.g., Ebert and Chicago Sun-Times) before choosing movie reviews from blogs. Also, I don't think the 2001 interpretations seem out of compliance, but I'm trying to build up this particular film article based on FA-class film articles (see at WP:FA#Media). Just compile the interpretation information in Notepad or something, then edit it in when it's good and ready as to avoid an edit conflict and to have all the sources you need. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for expansion

As The Fountain is a film that has been presented for interpretation to its audiences by the director, it seems appropriate to include an "Interpretations" section. However, Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, so personal perspectives cannot be included in this section. Interpretations must come from reliable sources which should be cited accordingly (please use Cite news template for this article) so the information is verifiable by other editors. Any addition to this section without citation will be removed. My suggestion for expansion is to look at reviews of the film at Rotten Tomatoes and find any review that interprets the film in a certain way. The more authoritative the review (being published by a newspaper instead of on an amateur blog), the more reliable the source. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still working on this -- actual 'rigorous' published analyses are infrequent and mostly blogstuff at present, but I'll dig up what I can and further substantiate this section in the next 24-48 hrs. Other additions (with citations!) are, of course, welcome. -- Sskoog, 27 November 2006
Okay, there's a little more up there now... it's still a bit weak, but better than it was. Some of the "Interpretations" content could very plausibly be transplanted into "Themes." I'll consider that in the near future, while simultaneously digging through further Tomato-reviews. Am noting a universal reviewer tactic of cryptically hinting at some "blurriness" or "synchronicity" between the three storylines without explicitly going into detail! -- Sskoog, 28 November 2006
Definitely is a worthwhile expansion. If there is further content to add, I suggest trying to segment the various interpretations into their own categories; about how reviewers see the meaning of the tree, about how reviewers see the connection of the story arcs, about how reviewers determine what's reality or not, etc. I'll see what copy-edit changes I can make, but the content itself definitely contributes to the article. Nice job. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing the plot

The plot needs to be written in a way that no interpretation is made from the film's scenes. The Plot section should detail the scenes, but not assume anything in depth. This is to prevent disagreement in what should be an indisputable section about the film. Nothing should indicate what periods are real or false, and nothing should directly indicate that the living tree is indeed Izzi. (The story of the First Father should be shared, but it's too much interpretation to explain beyond that. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the plot be fully detailed or just a plot summary? The challenge with a fully detailed plot is that the content would be a mix of in-universe and out-universe phrases; explaining the fiction, then explaining the editing changes. The depth, though, would basically present what the viewer would see and not any interpretations. With a plot summary, it seems easier to sum up the film, but the lack of detail would scream for additional interpretation. What do the other editors think? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's very difficult, particularly with a film this suggestive and image-strewn. I keep second-guessing myself and trying to prune back to the basics, but certain sequences (nape-of-neck-hairs/tree-hairs in constant superimposition, tattooed-finger/tattooed-arms) seem so heavyhanded and obvious I can't help but think a direct comparison is being made, as is the case with detective films wherein an investigator's eyes keep moving from a piece of evidence to a suspect, then back to the evidence, then back to the suspect, as if to non-verbally communicate to the audience "He's the one, he did it." Longer-reaching speculation (ex: is 21st-century Tom the same as 26th-century Tom) is clearly a matter for individual interpretation; I agree that such material does not belong in a straight factual plot summary. -- Sskoog, 27 November 2006
The issue seems to be that the Plot section would be unimaginably long if we attempted to include every piece of evidence in the film that suggests a connection of some sort. There's just too many things to write about -- the transition scenes, the mixed elements toward the end, the little details that suggest the periods' relation to each other. I'm thinking that this should be a bare-bones plot summary. We should write about each story arc as briefly as possible. It would be easy to implement the conquistador's tale within the body of the scientist's story arc, but the future period is extremely tricky, as there is no direct connection made between it and the other two periods. We should leave the details and interpretations in the Interpretations sections -- the more detail we include in the Plot section, the more pickier we'd get. Let's leave it to reliable sources to actually interpret the film in the appropriate Interpretations section. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Man

It may be worth noting that the production's original title The Last Man may be a reference to Nietzsche's idea of Last Man as opposed to Übermensch ("overman" or "superman"). According to Nietzsche, the Last Man is apathetic, incapable of doing anything other than simple survival. This would mostly apply to the astronaut Tommy who is set on an unchangeable course toward Xibalba and does nothing more than care for himself and the tree. There's also a repetition of imagery involving lines leading toward a center which could symbolize ideas of fate and powerlessness. Circles also appear often in the film, possibly indicating the cyclical (and therefore, unchangeable) nature of rebirth.

Now, before you cry original research, I'm not suggesting we include all this information, since these are obviously my own ideas. I'm using them only as support for the suggestion that we include Nietzsche's Last Man idea as a possible influence on the film, since the phrase appears both in the work's original title and the first track of the soundtrack by Clint Mensall. // Montag 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Without actual citation, such a notion can't even be suggested. I could say that The Last Man title could be based on the novel by Mary Shelley (about a man watching a civilization die out from under him), the comic book Y: The Last Man (has a monkey just like Donovan), or even The Last Man on Earth (no foreseeable connection, but if someone tried hard enough, perhaps). "Possible influences" is still original research without anyone backing your notings. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Those all sound valid to me. I don't see why all of them can't be included. In fact, I'd highly recommend it. My main problem with only including things from citations is that it ignores simple intelligent discussion, because stuff people publish isn't always right, and ideas that haven't been published yet aren't always wrong. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can dig up. // Montag 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If you really do believe that, then you should reconsider being an editor on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic. It's not supposed to facilitate general discussion, it's supposed to present unbiased fact to the reader. When you state your own opinion in a Wikipedia article, that's original research and lacks a neutral point of view. no matter how intelligent it sounds. There are other sites if you want to have simple intelligent discussion, because if you want to pull your own notions out of thin air (like I did with my infantile The Last Man references, Wikipedia isn't going to be the place for it. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I back Eric on all things "Original Research". The guy has obviously been through this before and knows what should not be in articles about artsy cinema that's meant to be interpreted. It must be tiring having to knock everyone back so much. keep it up. --Jeff 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to knock people back. I'd love to have a whole bunch of editors contribute great content to this article, but the content should be verifiable and encyclopedic. I'm just trying to help outline how an article for a highly open-ended film like The Fountain can be written. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Original research, wikipedia is supposed to accumulate and organize existing knoledge, not to come up with it.

[edit] GA hold

This article is well done, NPOV, thorough (especially to be so new) and generally well referenced, good pictures. But it still has a few issues:

  1. In the cast section there is only one reference. This is not a deal breaker, but does that reference verify everything stated there?
  2. Add source information for Image:Fountain poster 1.jpg. The image patrollers are very stict.
  3. In the paragraph that begins "To further promote his film, Aronofsky..." there are an abudnance of http inline references. These are generall frowned upon if they co-exist with footnotes. I recommend converting them to footnotes, or putting some text like [www.website.com link] (or whatever is appropriate) in the bracket.
  4. This quote needs a citation directly behind it: "I knew it was a hard film to make, and I said at least if Hollywood fucks me over at least I'll make a comic book out of it."

These are minor. Please fix them, and I think it could be passed (by myself or someone else).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. The reference covers all the information given in the paragraph as part of a long interview. The cast list, though, was taken from the Internet Movie Database. How can this be cited accordingly, if at all? Otherwise, yes, though more cast information based on new citation may be added in the future.
  2. Source and fair use rationale sections have been added to the poster image.
  3. The inline references have been removed. They were direct links to the artwork, which was limited by the New York Times' slideshow setup. I'll figure out another way to implement them, but in the meantime, the citation at the end of that particular sentence should direct readers to the appropriate NYT article.
  4. Citation (which was at the end of the paragraph) has been duplicated at the end of Aronofsky's quote to ensure accessibility.
The article is still under construction, but I believe that future edits (fine-tuning the Plot section and expanding the Interpretations section) will be beneficial to the article as a whole. If there's anything else, feel free to inform. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is poorly wrtten in some areas, but I'm trying to fix isolated problems. The reception section does not appear to be NPOV, mostly avoiding negative criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to list the areas where the article is poorly written. Also, I think the Reception section is NPOV; it just needs expansion with more reviewers' statements (calling it an instructional video for yoga students ain't a compliment, son), since there's one positive, and one negative. Rotten Tomatoes reflects the percentage of reviews that have been divided, and the box office information about the opening weekend's minimal intake. What are you smoking? Please understand what WP:NPOV actually means. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently rewriting the poorly written plot, and I'll let you know when I get past that section. I don't know if the reception section has changed since I last looked at it, but appears to be more balanced, however, I would like to see more serious film criticism. I'll have some more comments, shortly. —Viriditas | Talk 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Could someone point me to the comments page describing why the film is rated "high"? I doubt anyone will remember this film a year from now, nor does it appear to be noteworthy. —Viriditas | Talk 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie's been rating a whole bunch of films "high"... not sure what his intent is... --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Barely been out for a couple of weeks, 50% aproval rating on RT, aparent box office flop... its much to soon to say its importance is "high", given the ammount of fans "mid importance" makes more sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.169.56 (talk • contribs) 00:56, November 29, 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your belated comments with four tildes (~) at the end. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up Interpretations

I think the lead paragraph could use an expansion in citation about how The Fountain can be interpreted differently. The "Rubik's Cube" quote almost seems like a throw-away quote without additional support for welcoming various interpretations. (Aronofsky has encouraged interpretations and has even enjoyed hearing them in interviews.) Furthermore, the second paragraph is too fragmented in purpose and needs to be re-organized to flow better. In addition, references need to go after punctuation. Any further concerns or messages responding to these concerns are welcome here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Promotion

Good job folks. I think this badboy is ready for primetime. As the weeks go on, I am sure it will require expansion and updating, but it is good as it is and I think stable enough to be a GA. Few suggestions:

  • In the sentence beginning "$18 million had been spent," the money figure needs to be spelled out since it begins a sentence.
  • "Promotion" should logically go begore "Reception."

Other than that, great job. Congratulations to all involved.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article's Good Article status being reviewed for possible delisting

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review. --Ling.Nut 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion can specifically be seen at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review#The Fountain. Part of the issue is what genre The Fountain meets. As seen above in #SciFi???, a couple of editors questioned that the film was straightforward science fiction, and as I agreed with their arguments, I boldly removed it. The initial sentence in the lead paragraph, "that explores the themes of life, love, death, rebirth and the ageless quest for immortality", was based from the film's official synopsis and was not unsourced. Per WP:LEAD, this sentence helps summarize the Themes section, which is in itself strongly cited with both first-party information via interviews and third-party interpretations via reviewers (as original research interpreting the film would not be permitted here). In addition, another argument made against The Fountain as a GA-class article is that the Themes section begins with, "The Fountain explores multiple, overlapping themes, often involving religion, mythology, technology, and psychology, leaving wide room for various interpretations," which the dissenting editor feels that there is lack of a reliable source. However, the Themes section itself very much reflects this summary statement, with religion, mythology, technology, and psychology all strongly cited. There is no fancruft here. The "wide room for various interpretations" is supported by the Aronofsky quote at the end where he says the film is "very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end". The editor has said that there is a "large share of unsourced info, as most of these sources have little of encyclopedic and more of speculative in them", which makes no sense, because the citations are online and quickly verifiable and help shape the imagery of the film. How is this speculative? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production and Influences

Since the Influences section is not very long, I was wondering what other editors thought about disseminating the Influences content into respective sections of the Production section. Some influences are already mentioned in the Production section, such as "To design a rainforest set, the films Aguirre, the Wrath of God and The Holy Mountain were screened for the crew for inspiration." This seems appropriate, as the influences helped shape production. The conquistador influences could be worked into the paragraph about the Maya warriors, and the astronaut period influences could be tied into the talk about the biospheric ship. The Sefirot influence could also be added to the tree paragraph, especially since the "resizing" factor was part of production. If anyone has an issue with this merge, just comment here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Fountain_2f03.html"