![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Wildman, David (November 22, 2006). "Vivid anarchy". Worcester Magazine. ((cite news))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help) (Useful excerpts from interview with Aronofsky follow)
Just tired of having the record in my inbox. Erik (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The development of perspective is also depicted in The Fountain (2006), an intriguing, visually stunning, Darren Aronofsky film about life and death that melds past, present, and future (the 16th, 21st, and 26th centuries). Hugh Jackman plays a surgeon and researcher looking for a cure for his wife's terminal illness. Just as he nears a cure, she dies. Refusing to believe in her death, he claims death is a disease and that he will find the cure. His denial and work addiction are obstacles to the development of the strength of perspective, but he is able to confront those obstacles as he develops acceptances and wisdom, represented by themes drawn from both Buddhism (meditation, rebirth, reincarnation) and Christianity (eternal life, faith, and love).—Erik (talk | contribs) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Kollision (talk · contribs) removed the article's "See also" section that lists similar works to The Fountain and references Allmovie. He cited a 2009 discussion about such a section at Fight Club. I argue that consensus can change, and all film articles should not be bound by discussion at a single film article. A "See also" section is intended to link to related but tangential topics. Allmovie is acceptable as a reliable source and lists similar works to The Fountain. For example, Solaris also has a hallucinatory love, and Altered States also has a Deleuzian construct. Such internal links expose readers to similar films in a non-promotional manner, and the removal of the section decreases the value of the article in this regard. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I really liked this film and wanted to find out more about its themes. But after spending 5 minutes reading this article, I am sadly left with a huge feeling of disappointment because it's just narrative. There is just under 10% of this article devoted to the critical analysis of the film's structure, meaning and symbolism. The rest of the page is devoted to narrative on the production e.g. the fact that Brad was not in it, etc. Material like this should be in an encyclopedia but that does not make it encyclopedic because the information does reflect critical commentary of the facts. It's just facts written as a story through words that have been taken from other published sources.
This film has some major philosophic talking points regarding the nature of "Life, Death and Everything" but none of these themes are addressed at all in this article, save for a small section at the beginning. Something is seriously wrong when there is plain narrative about how a particular scene was shot but not what meaning/context that scene had? But this article demonstrates how the Wikipedia model fails despite the best efforts of its collaborators. Due to the restrictive nature of all the rules and regulations in writing an article, the use of sources, no original ideas, no inclusions of what has not already been published/said/written about, all you will ever read on articles such as this if the rules are applied rigidly (and they have looking at the edit logs) plain and simple narrative. Encyclopedic articles must include critical analysis.
From reading this article, I have not learned anything about what the film's aims were, how it's story arcs critically addressed certain themes or what conclusions could be drawn from the film's imagery across time and space. Instead what I do know is, is how much it cost, who might have starred in it if the budget was bigger, where it was filmed and when? etc. A test for narrative, is whether it could have been surmised in a simple table, and in this case 90% of the article could have been done in this fashion. I am sorry to say this, as the article obviously ticks most of Wikipedia's requirement boxes for a good article but it fails miserably in the requirement of being a serious critique of a very intelligent film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.87.77 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
-SPOILER ALERT- This post contains details about the plot.
The article sets readers attention in wrong directions. The movie is not easy to understand but it is not complex. At least it is not chaotic set of stories. I've watched The Fountain several times and I like it because of simplicity but with additional greater, hidden meanings. It covers the questions of human nature and the sense of life from different perispectives but with one core story. The plot is about the man who lost his wife because of brain cancer. He is biologist, researcher who fighted with the disease and he just didn't make it in time. However, accidentialy he researched the way to live forever, through the symbiosis with the Tree of Life. This turns the story to the actual time set in the far future, when same man travels through space to find answers to his failure. He meditates and fights with the past through visions (the core story is told by that as retrospective), he evolved, he's searching for the meaning, but yet he didn't reconciled with death of his wife. The movie tells us how he does this and finally makes it. The scenes set in 15th century are the basiucaly same story but set in his wife's book (which she intentionally wrote for him as a guide). They are also the answer to the man's questions and on the side, raising other interesting thoughts. The character of inquisitor is the parallel to the cancer and the conquistador is ordered to fight it. But notice how the queen of Spain (actually the wife) refuses to go with straight fight against the threat and finds the other way, leading to the ancient, magical Tree of Life. The book ends with sentence that "conquistador finds death". This is very answer to the man's questions but he's not aware of this as he is trying to understand it as he was told to end the book his way.
Finally, through the analysis of his past actions (and we can feel that he did that hundreds of times when traveling alone in space - by his reactions), he finds that his fight was worthless, just as the book's conquistador fight. The immortality he was gloryfing was the barrier to the joy and the advancement granted by death. He finally accepts that he would meet again with his wife after death and it itself is the opening to the new life as part of the cycle. He finishes the book showing how wortless was conquistador's fight, that he was basically led to die. Obviously the queen was aware that she will die too, giving him the ring to put on >there<, to be together afterlife. After that the man sacrifices himself to the dying star, which even earlier was said that is not dying but evolving into new form.
Summing all up, the plot covers the basic problem of reconciliation with death and actions one should perform instead fighting it. That would be being closer to the dying person, being together. "Together we will live forever".
PS. Even the small detail turns to that, when the Izzy is falling down and Tom is holding her in last time, as she tells him later that "she felt support there being reconciled with the fact". That is the lesson the movie tries to imply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabanowster (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Fountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://archive.premiere.com/actors/3060/cover-story-hugh-jackman.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The plot is about 600-800 words overlong. Some of this is due to discussion about the plot (including references) being in the plot, which is wrong. The rest is just self-indulgence. I'm going to do what I can to fix this.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The "Official website" template in the External Links section takes me to WikiData's second-ranked "flashsite" URL, which doesn't work, instead of the first-ranked one in the "official website" section. Why? How can this be fixed?