Talk:Æon Flux (film)

This paragraph makes no sense
"Reception to some aspects of the film appears to vary depending on how well (if at all) the critic is familiar with the TV series. A number of critics, for example, cast scorn on the character of Sithandra who is shown to be a woman who has replaced her feet with a second set of hands, even though this character actually appeared in the original TV series."

I don't know what point the author of this paragraph was trying to make. Is it being suggested that if the critic was familiar with the TV series, then this character would not be the object of scorn? Is there any reason to believe that? Can someone clean this up? 213.168.230.149 23:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph. Keithmahoney 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who wrote it. I think it's fine as it stands. The fact is people familiar with the character of Sithandra from the TV show were familiar with her -- the fact she had hands for feet. Critics unfamiliar with the show said it was something stupid the scriptwriter came up with in a case of "weird for the sake of weird". Just look at Rotten Tomatoes or any number of Sci-Fi BBSes and you'll see this. I am reverting the deletion for now as I would like to see other people's comments by way of consensus on this. 23skidoo 01:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just want to mention that I am not against the content of the paragraph, just that its wording is not easy to follow. With a sentence of the form "A even though B" it is suggested that A is surprising, or unlikely given B. Yet critics disliking the character and the character being in the tv series do not seem to be related in this way. Keithmahoney 21:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice this paragraph until now, I have to say I agree with Keithmahoney - the way it's written implies that if a critic was familiar with the TV show, he'd like it, and if not, than he would be against it. Not to mention I only remember reading a single review that mentioned the hands/feet/racism thing. Considering that at Rotten Tomatoes, it has a dismal 10% approval rating (only 8 positive out of 78 total reviews!) and that there were at least a few reviewers who mentioned being fans of the original series but hating the movie - I'd venture to say there's little to no relation of fandom/positive reception. Fans and non-fans of AF (the series) overall didn't like the movie, I would guess, though it's hard to prove officially outside of a general statement. The whole paragraph should be deleted. --SevereTireDamage 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aeon Flux Not Screening for Critics
In what is always a very bad sign, Paramount has decided not to screen Aeon Flux in advance for critics. This is usually a sign that the film will be an absolute stinker, and that they are trying to make a quick buck opening weekend before being savaged by the press. Despite the lack of press screenings, it still could be a mindlessly entertaining action flick. 

Should we note this?

--vossman 04:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Not right now. The movie opens tomorrow, and if the reaction is bad, then it should be posted that there was little confidence in the movie before it came out.

--Jhessela, December 01, 2005


 * Actually they did screen it for critics -- at about 10PM the night before, so too late for most deadlines for Friday. From a few advance reviwes I've seen it's going to be the Serenity situation all over again. People familiar with Firefly were more receptive to Serenity than those unfamiliar with the TV series. So far the reviews I've seen have criticized the film for much of the same elements that made the TV show work - and it's clear the reviewers are not familiar with the show. 23skidoo 14:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a comment now stating this: Paramount Pictures chose not to allow critics to review this film until 2 hours before it opened. This move, which made it impossible for critics to include reviews in the next day's paper, made some critics expect a bad film. Speaking as an outsider, I don't know whether this is standard practice or not.  Could somebody familiar with such issues please modify the comment to be more informative in this regard? (Random wikipedia-reader.)


 * Sadly, it is common practice. It's not so much merely a "belief" of critics as it is the truth. It's also totally obvious, especially for such a high profile, high-budget film as AF, they they figured there'd be no good reviews for it. It's also reprehensible, as they (somewhat succeeded in) sell the movie deceptively to get higher opening weekend box office numbers. The entry implies there was more of a backlash from critics because of this, but honestly, when the studio doesn't even have enough faith in their own movie... that's pretty bad. (And IMO, it was a pretty bad film, regardless if you were familiar with the AF universe or not.) --SevereTireDamage 06:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

7his problem came up for the Final Fantasy 7 movie as well. "If you know what they are talking about it’s good.” Critics NEED to be fans or at least watch what these movies are based on and not just research it. We either need to get better critics or have them all play 8-bit video games to remember what plot line is all about. MajinPalgen 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the plotline for the movie is actually very straightforward - more straightforward than most of the TV episodes. And unlike, say, Serenity or the X-Files movie the film does not require knowledge of the TV series (things like Sithandra and her feet are in jokes for those "in the know"). The problem is when you have reviewers used to films such as (picking one at random) Million Dollar Baby -- when they are presented with something like Aeon Flux or The Matrix, they either collapse in on themselves or they focus on special effects, more or less ignoring the storyline. What they fail to understand is movies like Aeon Flux are aimed at a generation raised on Manga and Anime -- and they feature some of the most complexn and confusing storylines anywhere. 23skidoo 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

8eautyful, 4lex you’re a mind reader. But these “in the know” lines and scenes establish a universe. Final Fantasy and Star Wars have done it to the point that you’re looking and waiting for them. It’s about 8 1/2 hours to watch every 4Eon +  Critics are PAID for their observation and interpretation. I’d be happy if they would just admit weather they knew the subject or not before they watched and reviewed it. MajinPalgen 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's fine by me, too. I don't expect critics to have watched an entire TV series before reviewing a film, but very rarely do critics out and admit that they are not part of the demographic the film is aimed at. IIRC Ebert actually said something to this effect re: A.F. Fans of Serenity probably had a similar beef with regards to the response to the film version of Firefly, although it could be argued that A.F. was more of a "jumping on point" than Serenity was, but that's a debate for another venue. 23skidoo 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparing to the TV series
I'm just back from seeing the film and I thought it was much better than I expected. There were some fundimental changes, yes, but at the same time it still felt like Æon Flux. I've seen one negative review criticizing the character with hands for feet -- obviously the reviewer is unaware that character appears in the TV series. So who wants to start off the comparison section? I think there were a number of clear references to the TV series, from the opening shot to the closing shot of the film. 23skidoo 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the movie was substantially different in the storeline than the actual series, but then again, Æon flux the series, has multiple different episodes with different storelines, I consider the movie just an addition to the collection. Like a new episode of sorts. I was definately pleased with the outcome. --Petiatil 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the best way to approach it. Once you get past the physical differences between Theron and the original character (I still say Tricia Helfer would have been a better choice), it really isn't that far removed from the series. Yes, there are a few major changes (I won't spoil them here) ... but at the same time check out the ending of the episode "Chronophasia". I went into the movie yesterday expecting a train wreck and IMO it was far from it. I was quite surprised (pleasantly so) at how Goodchild was handled. Of course the movie will bomb because of advance word of mouth and the fact no one knows what Aeon Flux is (as evidenced by some of the statements made by reviewers that evidenced they'd never seen the show), but I for one think it could have been much worse. 23skidoo 19:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

4Eon in this interpretation is more 3-D, (No that was not a pun) which is good because it would be construed that the lack of feeling was bad acting rather than the part. I’m glad to see 4Eon has stayed objective minded and still has her “gravity problem”. Although what made it all come together was the secret that explained how 4Eon keeps dying and lives life after life. This makes all the deviations and liquid TV come together for this climax. MajinPalgen 14:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is one way to explain it (Aeon's deaths and returns), and another comes from the character's name itself. On the page dedicated to the animated series, I pointed out the naming pun convention common in anime - and the cartoon version has been called "American anime."  An (A)eon is a very long period of time, Flux means change, and therefore Aeon Flux means "Eternal Change". --Bear Eagleson 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also had the impression that in the movie world, Æon was only cloned twice. Once from Katherine to Æon Flux, then a second time (400 years later) as Æon Flux.  The Keeper's line, and Oren's order to destroy Æon Flux's DNA, is what lead me to this impression.  --Bear Eagleson 15:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Low Point?
Are you considering this the low point because a woman having hands for feet is ridiculous looking or pointlessly "cutting edge", or because it is a BLACK woman with hands for feet? Somehow I don't think this would be such an issue with a white woman or man. Seems overly reactionary to me, and worse yet, unnecessarily PC. -Anon. 18:27, 5/12/05
 * Not to mention that it's actually a reference to the TV series. I've deleted the statement as POV. 68.104.201.53 06:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

7he original Sithandra was white or at least lacked melanin. I think they changed her ethnicity and had the other ethnic additions to avoide the racial criticism. The last thing they want is someone saying "white people rule the future!" Having Sithandra in the movie made it better in my mind, but I wish they had her do more fighting moves that only someone with hands for feet could do. MajinPalgen 14:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually the TV version of Sithandra was so augmented and exotic looking that one cannot really say with 100% certainty that the character was caucasian. I agree that sometimes characters seem to undergo a "race change" just to be PC, but I don't really think it matters that much with Sithandra since she was relatively minor and it gave the filmmakers a chance to get a second Oscar-nominated actress to appear in the film (actually it might be a third as I think Frances McDormond also was nominated once). 23skidoo 14:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen critics harping about Sithandra's feet in a few places, so I've put in a paragraph under criticism -- adding the fact that the character is from the TV series. 23skidoo 14:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a shame no-one involved in the movie payed close attention to the pronunciation of the original character's name: SKuh-Fan-druh. Emphasis on the K-sound.  First time I read "Sithandra," I thought, "who?"  Guessing on spelling her, and I feel Scafandra is an intimidating name (good for a double agent), whereas the soft syllables of the movie character made me think "what the hell?" --Bear Eagleson 05:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I took Sithandra to be a character inspired by Scaphandra. Aside from the feet, the characters have different names and appearances. And Sithandra doesn't have that weird grappling-dart-launcher implanted in her tongue. :) --Xastic 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I need to check the DVD again, but I believe that the character is referred to by the name Sithandra in the TV series credits (maybe Poirer misspoke the name when she recorded the dialogue). Too bad the tongue didn't make it into the movie. 23skidoo 04:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad the series didn't make it into the movie. ;) -Xastic 12:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to review the credits on the 1st disk of the DVD set, and unfortunately, I somehow didn't see a reference to either "Scafandra" or "Sithandra". On the Deviant Devices of AEon Flux segment on the special features, Poirer once again pronounces it as "SKuh-Fan-druh" when talking about all the augmentations. --Bear Eagleson 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Breen Jedi Council
right|thumb|400px One problem I had before I even saw the movie, was that in the previews - and indeed in the movie - the Breen council chamber looked a lot like the Jedi Temple, albiet with more colorful - comfortable - chairs.

Compounding this is the (unnamed) Breen council member who looks - and acts - a lot like Mace Windu. --Bear Eagleson 14:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. I found no apparent similarities within the film.  However, and this may just be me, whenever they showed the telepathic scenes, bathed in white light, I instantly flashbacked to one of the Planet of the Apes movies.  Am I weird? --Viriditas 14:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It reminded me more of the council chamber in The Prisoner, myself. I too saw no similarlity with Star Wars; the Jedi Council was hardly an original concept, either. It didn't have a POTA vibe for me. 23skidoo 14:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you seen all the POTA films? I'm referring to the interaction between the mutants and others, either apes, humans or both.  For some reason, whenever Æon Flux interacted with the Handler, I thought of that scene with the mutants.  I believe in both instances, the background set was white, and both had a balcony, IIRC.  --Viriditas 14:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, check this out! . Looks like I was right!  The subway stage did have a balcony.  I wonder if they were paying homage to POTA (Beneath the Planet of the Apes)? --Viriditas 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. The set shown for Beneath was built for My Fair Lady so its architecture isn't exactly unique. I've seen Beneath and I still don't get the connection. 23skidoo 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. It was fun to think about.  If I remember correctly, I thought of it because the Handler was at the top of the balcony communicating telepathically (or however you want to describe it--neuronetically?) with Æon Flux in the same manner as the mutants at the top of the balcony in BTPOTA who tortured Brent. --Viriditas 15:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like the set for Beneath the Planet of the Apes was built for Hello, Dolly! (film), and the resemblance between the scene in Beneath and this film is uncanny. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Flag
Fans of the film will point out the exquisite taste and truly impressive real-world buildings and settings used in the film, and the delicious minimalist nature of the artificial environment.

This is a very well written article, but I got to this sentence under the "Criticism" section, and I must say this sounds extremely biased. Are all these colourful descriptives praising the look of the film necessary? Sure it reads well, but it almost sounds like a flat-out promotion for the movie. Who's with me?
 * That's way too POV. I'll delete it. 23skidoo 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted content due to POV
I have deleted the following paragraph from the article as it is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. There are some good points made here, however there needs to be sources cited and it needs to be reworked so it doesn't come off as POV gushing. Where, for example, has it been stated that the film has attained cult status? It's only been out for about 6 months. etc.


 * On the other hand, the film is now beginning to develop a sleeper cult status amongst fans of pure cerebral Science Fiction, as it is a true embodiment of the ideals of written fiction of the silver age of SF, 1960–1975. Fans of the film will point out the exquisite taste and truly impressive real-world buildings and settings used in the film, and the delicious minimalist nature of the artificial environment. There is a recurring motif of plant life as a living threat and backdrop in many critical scenes in the film — plants as life force and plants as weaponry. The conception of biotechnology of the future being incredibly pervasive is also perhaps one of the finest hallmarks of the film, with an imagination based on real molecular biology and chemistry being very evident. Æon Flux is perhaps the most significant film to have as its centre genetics, cloning and disease since the trio of the Jurassic Park franchise, Outbreak and Gattaca in recent years.

23skidoo 18:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good delete. It's definitely way over the top. --SevereTireDamage 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It also looks on retrospect as if it might be copyvio as well. Reads too much like an essay or published movie review... 23skidoo 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, heh, that's precisely what I was thinking when I stumbled across that one glaring sentence. Wavy G 20:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>"sleeper cult following"??? Give me a break. It's unwatchable. I inflicted it upon myself yesterday and was amazed at how little I could find within the movie to enjoy (and we are talking Charleze T here!!!). I'd rather watch Zardoz again.


 * I think parts of the paragraph work well. It does have a small following, but the paragraph is entirely too "gushy." FWIW I didn't appreciate Zardoz on the first viewing. I just liked that Connery was brave enough to take such an odd part and that at some point two woman become the focus of the film. But I grew to appreciate it. The sad bit is the film just couldn't pack enough information into it for the idea to make sense, but once I started thinking about humans living forever and how odd that would be to finite beings, the film made much more sense. I suggest modifying the paragraph a bit and reinserting it.


 * For example;


 * On the other hand, the film has developed following among a certain segment of Science Fiction film fans. The use of interesting sets and minimalism may have something to do with this. There is also the recurring motif of plant life as a living threat and as a backdrop in many critical scenes in the film e.g. plants as life force and weaponry. William (Bill) Bean 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aeon Flux Movie.jpg
Image:Aeon Flux Movie.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fanboyism
"Despite the conflicting statements made by Chung in later interviews, this is not necessarily an outright lie, it merely indicates that Chung had rightly envisioned that the film would be a disappointment." - This is original research or plain idiocy. I can't decide which. Madskile (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
When Æon is sent on a mission to kill the government's leader, Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), she discovers that she is unwittingly playing a part in a secret coup.

One cannot discover that one is "unwittingly" participating in a coup when one has been assigned the task of killing the head of the government; that would be like discovering you've "unwittingly" committed armed robbery after holding up a bank using a gun.

However... I haven't seen the movie, so I can't make the assumption that the above passage is just a clumsy sentence. It's entirely possible that the film actually portrays her as being that obtuse, in which case the passage is perfectly fine; otherwise, it could use some copyediting. JFMorse (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She, (as well as the rebel group), has been manipulated by the leader's brother, to kill Trevor Goodchild. The coup described, is Oren against Trevor, not just the rebellion. A coup is an overthrowal by part of the state, not just rebels. --YB (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Æon Flux which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No budget sources
The budget was listed as $65 million in the Infobox and the intro but no sources were included.

The Numbers put the budget at $55 million. Box Office Mojo put the budget at $62 million.

It was not clear where the figure of $65 million came from, so I have changed the article to consistently list the budget range of $55-62 million (in the Infobox, the intro, and the box office section). -- 109.79.65.11 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW Screendaily said it had "a reported budget of around $60m" and the Hollywood Reporter said "a budget of $62 million" (admittedly in a source from 2018) -- 109.79.65.11 (talk)
 * So far Bomb report is the only one claiming the budget was $65 million. -- 109.79.65.11 (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Æon Flux(movie)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%86on_Flux(movie)&redirect=no Æon Flux(movie)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)