Talk:Equilibrium (film)

Synopsis

should that be taken out?Soyseñorsnibbles 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vlcsnap-58274.png

Image:Vlcsnap-58274.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EQ4-City.JPG

Image:EQ4-City.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

References to Other Literature section

This needs to be expanded. There are several references to Brave New world, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451 throughout this movie. If some are going to be listed, they all should be. Otherwise, just make a note that the film references these books without giving a list of specific individual examples. Whoa2000 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The character Mary O'Brien's name seems to be an hommage to a central character in 1984, though the two characters represent the opposite sides of the spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.23.47.9 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In order for these references to be included, you should find a source that makes the connection between Equilibrium and 1984 or Farenheit 451. Using just those books themselves would render any literary analysis original research. I agree that there are a lot of similarities going on, they just need to be sourced. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1984 (novel)

Is there no reference to the novel 1984. This film is almost a direct parallel to the book. Rather than thought (1984) the target is sensing; rather than Big Brother (1984) it is Father. Both protagonists work desk jobs for the Party and both realize how the gov't is oppressing. I couldn't believe that no one thought to include that very obvious parallel for the film. One could almost say that the film was based on the novel. Scottydude _talk 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the similarities between 1984 and Equilibrium are striking. I think I was the one who removed the references to 1984 from this article. The reason is because there was no reliable source demonstrating the similarities between the two, and I couldn't find any such source myself. By making the connection yourself between 1984 and Equilibrium, and including it in the article, you're engaging in original research, which is contrary to the five pillars of Wikipedia. I hope that explains why I had to remove references to 1984. If you're interested, I want to encourage you to find a critical review of Equilibrium drawing parallels to 1984 so it can be included in the article. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

True. I guess this is when I get frustrated, the facts are obvious but not citable. I will look for a published comparison. Scottydude _talk 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The movie looks and sounds like it’s trying to be both The Matrix and 1984 at the same time. Unfortunately it does really badly at both. Not sure whether it’s worth noting in the article, though. All fiction is inspired by something, after all. — NRen2k5, 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that people are over-hyping the links between this and other stories such as The Matrix, 1984, etc... a lot of the similarities are just due to the fact that they are all dystopian stories (I mean, 1984 has an ending about as far removed from that of Equilibrium as possible!)

HOWEVER it does say on the back of my DVD box that the Sunday Mirror descrived it as "The Matrix meets 1984", but I disagree this is anything more than meaning an innovative martial art meets dystopian themes SetaLyas (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot more like Brave New World than The Matrix OR 1984. A lot more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.49.188 (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even considered similarity to The Matrix; I don't see much in common there at all apart from "in the grimdark future, there is only war". I suppose there's overlap with Brave New World in taking a pill and going out to play notgolf in the countryside and taking nothing seriously. What it most closely resembles is Fahrenheit 451:- a specops force (firemen in F451; the "four letter" brigade in Equilibrium) whose sole duty it is to eradicate all traces of literature, art, knowledge, story, etc. as being outlawed by a totalitarian leadership. In both stories, the protagonist is a member of this enforcement who begins to consider questioning its validity. 49.195.193.210 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bloopers

I removed the bloopers section which was added by various anonymous IP addresses over the past week or so. Each item is original research. All of the items which had been added were judgment calls through inference or synthesis. If additional resources are provided which support these observations, feel free to add them back, but please make sure that the sources support the addition. Slavlin (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely support the removal. Just my two cents. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Record Number of Kills?

I remember reading that Christian Bale set a record for most on screen kills (or something along those lines) with this film, I imagine it would have been here or on the IMDb, but I don't see it listed here. If it's true, and sourced somewhere, I think that would be a good addition to the article. --24.141.144.157 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he came in second when the movie first came out (after Ogami Itto) but was since surpassed by Smith from Shoot 'Em Up. Preston is currently number three, accroding to Movie Body Counts. --Koveras ^☭ 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pixelibrium

Did anyone see Pixelibrium by Jordan "Jordanime" Lutsch on YouTube? It is the animation form from the Hall of Mirrors scene to the killing of DuPont. You can see it here.

Copypaste

In June 2009, this article was tagged as a potential copy from the IMDB, given substantial similarity in the synopsis. Evidence suggests Wikipedia originated the text. This is what their synopsis looked like in October of 2007. This is what our article looked like. It's always good to check these situations, but it seems clear that they incorporated text from us rather than the other way around. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Time for a {{backwardscopyvio}} template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception Verifiability

Removed the following from the Critical Reception section: Despite this, Equilibrium has established its status as a cult movie and something of an underrated film. Regardless of the ludicrousness and "mish-mash" ideas of the film's vision of a futuristic oppressive society, many have over the years praised its originality, suspense, and twists in the story, not to mention its sophisticated yet modest approach towards action sequences. One user from the IMDB film website branded the film as an "unexpected pearl." The film received an IMDB user rating of 7.8 out of 10. In keeping with policy, content that cannot be verified is to be removed, not given a Citation Needed tag. The section could use some additional content of course, but it must be referenced an sources must be subject to an editorial process (i.e. an individual IMDb user's comment is not relevant and falls to close to original research). If anyone wishes to revert this edit and subsequently include citations for this text, it would be welcome but please post here why you are doing it.70.127.69.16 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Year of Equilibrium ?

I like to know in which year the story of Equilibrium takes place. For example the Blade Runner story is set to the year 2019, Surrogates to 2017, Demolition Man is in 2032, I Robot in 2035 and Total Recall is set to 2084. --Solphusion (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell is Jim Powney?

The last line of the plot section states:

All of this means Jim Powney knows nothing

... who's Jim Powney? 81.227.251.80 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Matrix

I don't think this wording is exactly right:

"the film did not return well in terms of box office and was heavily overshadowed by The Matrix (a movie it was compared to directly)"

It makes it sound as if this film and The Matrix came out at the same time - but Equilibrium came out three years later. One might surmise that Equilibrium was heavily influenced by the Matrix in its style and presentation - hence the direct comparisons - but "heavily overshadowed by The Matrix" is surely a tag more appropriate to Proyas' 1998 "Dark City" than to this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.203.208 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a point. I've removed it. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Gun Kata section

Someone has added a comment box saying that Gun Kata is irrelevant. When I was wiffling enthusiastically about the philosophical and dystopian implications of this film, several people said "oh you mean the one with the Gun Kata" so it is clearly an aspect of the film that many people remember (and I haven't seen anything similar in other films). yewtree (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, I agree that the comment box is out of line and should be removed. Clearly it is a relavant part of the movie that deserves inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton flag

It is really, really bothersome to have to give proof that the sky is blue. Sometimes, it would help before reverting to look at the edit and follow the wikilinks.

The flag of the tetragrammaton uses a cross potent. This is, at least in middle europe, an obvious dead give-away to fascism - furthermore, the colours are black, white and red, the second imperial colours that incidentally were also used by the so-called "Third Empire"'s swastika flag.

As the swastika would have been too controversial and could have led to banning of the movie (please, do your homework and check yourself under swastika and symbols of Nationalsozialismus), Wimmer used a lesser-known but still obvious fascist symbol, i.e. the Kruckenkreuz of Austria's Vaterlandsfront. It was declared "equal to the state flag" during Austrofascism in 1935-1938.

And: the use of fascist architecture in Berlin is quite sublime. At least in Europe, the Kruckenkreuz flag (it is more an amalgram of Vaterlandsfront and Nationalsozialismus flags) is really the elephant - "if you should still have doubts about the connection between the tetragrammaton and fascism, here is a big neon-coloured last hint. If you still don't get it, you alas are merkbefreit and we could not help you."

So please just do your homework. There will also be no citation that the sky is blue; and references in a wiki can also take the form of wikilinks. Read those Articles about the Vaterlandsfront flag and Austrofaschismus, compare the flags, and if you want, also add a wikilink to the Nationalsozialismus' Hakenkreuz flag (I found THAT ONE too obvious to mention, but if it helps you...). --Hornsignal (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, reverting your edit wasn't a challenge to whether or not the information was correct. It was purely based on the lack of a citation. Wikilinks are not acceptable substitutions for inline citations. Each article must be able to stand on its own set of references and not rely on a wikilink to another article's reference. Refer to WP:CITE for more information. Secondly, comparing the flags and drawing a conclusion – no matter how reasonable and obvious it might be – can be considered a form of original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Citing a reliable source that supports the analogy alleviates the concern. It also helps us establish the significance of the information as it relates to the topic. Without that verification, it may be a trivial observation that doesn't necessarily belong in this article (see WP:DUE). As for your "sky is blue" analogy, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Take for example the statement that "the Eiffel Tower is in Paris". This is widely accepted fact that doesn't require research, and therefore doesn't require a citation. However, the statement that "Gustave Eiffel designed the Eiffel Tower" would need a citation, although it is easily verifiable. It may be hard to see the difference, but the rule of thumb is when you think it may be challenged, it's best to err on the side of caution and include a citation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Commentary

The AV Club reviewed the commentary of this film, which might be helfpul to anyone who wants to improve the production information and comments from the director without having to directly go through the commentary to get all the exact times needed for references. -- 109.76.197.189 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Which four letters

When watching this film, we are introduced to the Tetragrammaton clerics and the first thing on our minds is, OK, so four letters. Are these the Hebrew letters? There's no reason they should be, since it's a Greek word, but clearly at some point during this film, four letters are going to come forward as being particularly significant and important to such an extent that almost the entire known world reshapes itself around these four letters. Maybe it's really clever and it's using the primacy effect to bias our expectations like Twelve Monkeys does! Except by the end of the story, I had no closure. Clearly there are aspects of the film that prominently feature four, such as the flag. The film had established expectations that four letters would be significant but by the end of the film viewers are all wondering, OK but first of all which four letters and second of all, why / so what? It'd be like The Umbrella Academy never making any reference to umbrellas (iconographic, functional, metaphorical or otherwise) or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen being a hodgepodge of arbitrary protagonists none of whom are particularly extraordinary, gentlemanly, or in league with each other. If the clerics are the epitome and embodiment of four letters and somewhere (Director's Cut? Exclusive interview? Stolen diary?) it is recorded which four letters and why, I would dearly love that to be added to the article. It's an unsolved mystery. I bet there's a Deleted Scenes excerpt which explains it but which never made the final cut leaving viewers puzzling over the significance. Enquiring minds want to know.49.195.193.210 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent plot summary changes

Insnesnakos, the changes you made in this edit did not solve the concerns mentioned in the last revert, nor did it resolve the concerns explained in more detail to you on my talk page. The word count is still over 950+. Are you planning to cut this down to under 700 words? Once you do, then we can delve into the actual changes you've made and see if any further discussion is needed at that point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I read over the plot, and I couldn't find anything that could be cut down/left out to reach the 700 word limit. Maybe you could read over it to find something?

~~~ Insnesnakos (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Insnesnakos, normally I would just revert this again for causing a section of an article to go from being compliant to being in violation, but I'll have a look and see what can be trimmed down. In the future, it might be worthwhile if you planned changes like this in your personal sandbox and worked out the kinks there first before inserting into the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for deciding to take a look, and thanks for the sandbox suggestion.

Insnesnakos (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been about 10 days, and the Equllibrium plot has been reverted back by another user. Are you planning to revert the edit, then trim anything in the plot down?

Insnesnakos (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC).

I have not had the time to review due to other commitments outside of Wikipedia, and I'm honestly not sure when I will have the time to a complete review. However, just glancing at your version, it appears you added 2 paragraphs describing Preston and the dog. We were at 689 words prior to your addition, so there's really no way to add that material in unless you remove something else

You have to ask yourself, "Is it really that important, more important than other topics that already existed in the summary before your edit? What does it add to the plot's understanding that wasn't already there?" Sometimes we just have to sum up several scenes by saying how the character changed or evolved without describing each scene individually. I think we already accomplished that by describing how emotion was setting in with the relationship to O'Brien and feeling remorse, how he was losing the trust of Brandt, and eventually made the conscious decision to join the resistance and betray Father. We don't need to dwell too long on the scenes involving the dog, or even mention it at all. If we had the space, it would be a different story, but unfortunately we don't. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right about the dog not being too important and summing up the scenes to be shorter. But I don't get why you decided to revert my first plot edit instead of making the changes to make the article better/under 700 words, or marking the article for needing change. I still feel like making changes to the plot if I have to, though.

Insnesnakos (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, don't take reversion personally. Editors are reverted all the time in what is commonly a part of the editing process on Wikipedia. When you get reverted, it is just a sign that someone disagreed with your proposal. You have several options. If the reverting editor indicated a path forward in their edit summary, and you believe you can find compromise by modifying your original proposal, then you are encouraged to do so. Alternatively, you can go to the article talk page at any time to begin a discussion with the other editor to find common ground. There are a variety of methods an editor can take to navigate through conflict, as described at WP:BRB and WP:EPTALK.

In this situation, you restored a large portion of your original proposal, which again increased the word count of the plot summary above 700 words for a second time. To me, this is unacceptable without discussion. As described to you, the WP:FILMPLOT guideline advises against this. You can work as long as you need to in your sandbox (or elsewhere) to get the word count under control before inserting the final draft into the article. You seem to expect that someone else should do this for you, but ultimately, this is your responsibility.

Also since you know I have an interest, I recommend you post your final proposal here for review prior to posting it in the article. I'm not convinced at this point that any major changes are needed to the plot summary. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to go with the first option you suggested. I'll put the new plot here for review when it's under 700 words.

Insnesnakos (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)