Talk:Cloud Atlas (film)/Archive 1

Sea of fertility
Someone added a link to Sea of fertility book series.

Is this related to the movie somehow, except for similar ideas that are in the original book (which is not a subject of this article)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.176.207 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also a link now to a manga called "Phoenix," does this really need to be there? Just because it also tells stories across a wide span of eras doesn't mean it has any vital relation to the film.--71.59.140.91 (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for cast
Considering how some actors play different characters in the different periods, it may be worthwhile to create a table with multiple columns to show who played what role in each period. Probably not possible now, but worth doing when the film comes out. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas is a German-Hong Kongese-Singaporean-US production
The film was financed and/or produced by the following companies:


 * A Company Filmproduktionsgesellschaft (German)
 * ARD Degeto Film (German)
 * Anarchos Pictures (US)
 * Ascension Pictures (Singaporean)
 * Five Drops (German)
 * Media Asia Group (Hong Kongese)
 * X-Filme Creative Pool (German)

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/companycredits

Is it so wrong to credit those involved?

On a different note, the film has reportedly received no British financing and/or production involvement whatsoever. Just because the film is based on a British novel does not make it a British film. If that were the case then one could argue that Vertigo is not a US film but a French film because it was adapted from a French novel. Carlatenorio (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if your list is correct. I went to the official website, and it said in the "Credits" section, "Warner Bros. presents a Cloud Atlas Production/X-Filme Creative Pool and Anarchos Production". In essence, this is a multinational film, and I find that the "Country" and "Studio" fields are useless without clear definitions. The infobox is meant to provide a concise overview anyway. We should include in the "Studio" field these companies I mentioned and mention something in the article body about international financiers and also leave the "Company" field blank. I think it is meaningless to try to pigeonhole this film into one nationality or several. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The movie is only distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures - it is not too difficult to read the credits. It is also very clear who did produce the film - so what's the problem? --IIIraute (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * please also see: . --IIIraute (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Warner paid $20 million for the distribution rights --IIIraute (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, the good old what country does a film belong to argument! Anyway we can sort out a policy/guideline for this sort of thing? MisterShiney   ✉    22:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Racism
I just removed a section alleging racism because it was not backed by a reliable source. It looks like the same topic has been covered here too. I do not believe racebending.com is a reliable source either, but I believe that similar coverage related to The Last Airbender led to reliable sources reporting this topic. So the sources that currently exist are not reliable, but if the topic receives attention from reliable sources, it would merit inclusion in this article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think WP:RSOPINION should be cited here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.50.85 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How does it apply? The sources themselves need to be reliable. For example, if we are to cite a film review, the film critic should be published by a reliable source. We don't have these, but I would not be surprised to see some coverage when the film opens. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the Hollywood Reporter a reliable source? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cloud-atlas-asian-actors-yellow-face-MANAA-383070 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.64.24 (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since each of the major actors played several different roles across racial lines, the charge of racism seems confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.185.90 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The film's construction suggests an analysis of ouroboros and yin and yang, where the interplay of black and white has distinct meaning as "the weak are meat and the strong will eat." The film's structure, therefore, is told as each character vies for power along the yin and yang curve.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmsage25 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to respectfully disagree. After seeing the movie I feel that the movie is not about race, or gender, or religious discrimination. the movie cautions against the perils of societies where an elite few (the 1%) feed on the majority (the 99%, the consumers, etc.).  The elites feel that there is a "natural order of things" and that they are entitled to enslave the weak (the 99%) so that they live to serve the strong (the 1%).  It is about how inequality dooms a civilization as they feed on one another and in the end up destroying everything for everyone from pollution, or war, or lack of resources.  In the end the 1% have destroyed the earth to such an extent that they are dependent upon people from the stars coming to take them away and save them.  Hopefully, on the new world the civilization is more inclusive so that everyone is able to pursue their potential and not stifled and held back as their efforts are tied up in trying to maintain the lifestyle of the 1%. l santry (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

On the criticism of the cast for taking asian roles, my interpretation of the poor conversion of the facial features is not as an attempt to make the actors look fully asian, but that racial lines will only blur more and more in the future with traditional barriers to unions between people of different ethnicities fading away into the past. 108.28.74.38 (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the article, the section currently seems somewhat one sided. Are there any sources or pieces of news that disagree with/counter such accusations? Stabby Joe (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the future race, unanimity, was the same. In fact, these calls of racism by MANAA and anyone else have completely misunderstood the point. Even the name of the future, FICTIONAL race, unanimity, makes this fairly obvious. Like these past two contributors, I would really like to see some further sources backing up the actual intent of the characters portraying unanimity characters.Brakoholic (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Racebending gained traction as reliable source after Roger Ebert and several other sources used Racebending as a source of news, which would make it a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. In addition, the writer himself, has been asked as "Mike has been interviewed about media diversity by dozens of news organizations on the issue he's writing about, including the Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, BBC Radio, and Public Radio International" says. I say it's a notable allegation especially the follow up comments with the Jim Sturgess comment in response to such allegations (in which he responded to the allegations of racism by being a jerk... but IMO, which was screencapped.)

I should also remind you that this is not a forum. So if the people agree with the assessment or not doesn't make it more or less valid. Personally, I would say that it would go into the critical reception section. And the Jim Sturgess comments should be mentioned as it is a reply. (A stupid reply, yes, but it is an official reply). http://www.racebending.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/twitter_jimsturgess011.jpg --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The yellowface looked like Romulans, really ugly Romulans.72.201.19.165 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Critical Reception
Uh, the movie has gotten mostly middling to bad reviews yet the Critical Reception section takes three sterling quotes and tosses in one bad one? How does that reflect the critical consensus at all?Capeo (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How about you compile all the reviews and provide quotes instead of just pulling a comment out of your ass?2001:558:6026:9:1DE2:D9F6:DBB8:C443 (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The metacritic data compiles that. How about you accept legit criticism like an adult instead of attacking it like a net troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.208.126 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco
Werent the san francisco scenes shot there? I think the film should be categorized under Category:Films shot in San Francisco and Category:Films set in San Francisco, California, along with Category:Films set in Korea.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The San Francisco scenes were shot in Glasgow. → --IIIraute (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Premiere
Apparently, our date for the opening is wrong: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/09/toronto-film-festival-cloud-atlas-premiere-with-halle-berry-tom-hanks-wows-crowd-cast-directors-get-standing-ovation/ says "Saturday," which is the eighth, not the ninth.Kdammers (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot
What the heck is the movie about? What are the main story lines? The plot description in the article tells me nothing! The trailer for the movie makes little sense. I get the idea of past lives. But what are the stories in the movie? Marc S. Dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * see the racism section. The movie cautions against the perils of societies where an elite few (the 1%) feed on the majority (the 99%, the consumers, etc.). The elites feel that there is a "natural order of things" and that they are entitled to enslave the weak (the 99%) so that they live to serve the strong (the 1%). It is about how inequality dooms a civilization as they feed on one another and in the end up destroying everything for everyone from pollution, or war, or lack of resources. In the end the 1% have destroyed the earth to such an extent that they are dependent upon people from the stars coming to take them away and save them. Hopefully, on the new world the civilization is more inclusive so that everyone is able to pursue their potential and not stifled and held back as their efforts are tied up in trying to maintain the lifestyle of the 1%. l santry (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The film is about no such thing. Did you even watch the movie? Armandtanzarian (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This dreadful article makes the film sound like a depressing mix of Left Coast and German socialism, racism, inclusiveness, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Much like the current Democratic election campaign issues. The pessimistic feeling is emphasized by the poor spelling, bad grammar, and overall whininess.  No wonder it got so many bad reviews! Santamoly (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The movie and discussion causes the examination, and therefore, importance of understanding fascism, socialism, feudalism, oligarchy, and how the affect society. It is  fascinating. l santry (talk)
 * On 16 August 2013, I added two secondary sources to explain the plot and one of the sources has a very good infographic, which explains who is reincarnated as who. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do something about the plot, it is clueless. I watched the first part of the movie and I live under impression the plot is distorted too much. I think the presented facts are not the real ones from the movies 100 %. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.250.213 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Country of production
I'm a bit confused on the production countries listed (namely Hong Kong and Singapore). From my research, I've found two that list only Germany (Variety and the Toronto FIm Festival), while Allmovie and A-R-Films state both United States and Germany. How should we sort this? So far I've just listed Germany until I can get more information. The other information seems to have just been pulled from IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Guardian: City hopes £62m adaptation of David Mitchell's book will become first German blockbuster. --IIIraute (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Worst movie flops in history should be interlinked in that article
100 million 10 million income

should this be listed in the articles of histories biggest blunder of movies in terms of income?


 * No, because it was funded as an independent film, I believe through donations. Then Warner Brothers purchased it for $15 million, and domestically it has made $18 million, so the studios have actually made a pretty good profit and it's only been out a few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat spasms (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I supose the episodic parts were nothing special and it would be like 6 different short tv series. the only difference is that like other movies, there are some roles played by the same actor.Thereisnospoons (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Only if reliable sources make such claims. By this narrow measurement (first week's gross = 11% of budget), Shawshank Redemption was also a dismal failure. I suspect the hurricane ripping up the eastern seaboard all weekend had something to do with dampening gross, too. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats true. since the hurricane also stopped other movies. it would be logical this one as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereisnospoons (talk • contribs) 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point, it seems clear that Cloud Atlas won't be anywhere near belonging on such a list. As of this date, it's made $102 million worldwide.  I realize that the filmmakers, the studio and the theaters all share that total, but by the time all the totals are counted, Cloud Atlas will merely be a mild failure.  The sorts of cinematic disasters which end up on that list lose far more money than this will.  By the time the home video and broadcast rights income is counted, the production company might even be able to break even after another year or two.Wyldstaar (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The film hasn't yet been released for several countries - UK, for example. --IIIraute (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And it already grossed what it coasted. So it's not such a disaster. --Hyliad d), 08:59, 9 february 2013 (CEST)
 * Within its 4th month of release it has well earnt its whole budget back because of its complicatedness or what ever deep sides it is not that failure project. Orgio89 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, they haven't made the budget back from the box office, since the studio doesn't get 100% of the box office. Their percentage varies depending on the country and it also usually drops from one week to the next.  There's also the marketing budget to consider, which is often almost as expensive as the movie itself, if not more in some cases.Wyldstaar (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast
The cast section is ridiculously repetitive. I agree with the suggestion Erik made at the top of this page: a table listing the actor's name and the various parts they played in the different sections. That makes more sense than the needless repetition we have now. There is also no reason to repeat the director information in the cast section. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think thats a much better idea that the current format. Something like this? Trut-h-urts man (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly like this. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I approve! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice improvement. Please feel free to put it in pagespace. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ready for prime time!-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  01:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am new to Wikipedia and have no idea how this editing stuff works so I apologize if I am writing this in the wrong place. But in the last column (Sloosha's Crossing) Hugh Grant played the Kona chief as well as "Old Georgie," the devil. Can that also be added to the chart? 24.199.4.70 (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * you are very much wrong!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.247.248 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We could do that if Hugh Grant had actually portrayed Old Georgie. Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't Doona Bae play Catkin's mom in the piece set on the Big Island? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.253.69 (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and she's credited as Zachry's Sister. Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert Frobisher is gay in the movie, bisexual in the book.
Just changed this in the plot summary for "Letters." It's confusing, I realize, but it's an important clarification. In the book, Robert Frobisher develops feelings for Vyvyan Ayrs' daughter, Eva (a character who was removed from the movie). This spurs a different plot than what happens in the movie. Meanwhile, in the movie, Frobisher confesses to Rufus Sixsmith that when sleeping with Jocasta he feels as though he will never understand the appeal of women. He also then seems to sincerely fall for Vyvyan Ayrs.

The reason for these changes seems clear when considering the changes in theme between the book and movie. The book focuses more on people making the same mistakes and having the cards of power stacked against them in general, while slowly but surely moving in the right direction. The movie, meanwhile, focuses more on there being "a natural order to the world" with certain selected individuals trying to upend and change it. By making Frobisher gay, the directors were able to better show this theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.108.28 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the film, Frobisher is shown in bed with Sixsmith and with Jocasta. I say leave the adjective as bisexual and keep cluebot ng from tripping over the edit continuously.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But he also confesses to Rufus that he does not have sexual feelings for Jocasta. This is also a key aspect of the movie as the characters are supposed to be upending the social order; identifying as bisexual in the 1930s as opposed to decidedly gay in the 1930s kind of undermines that in some ways, which is why the directors probably chose to change the character's sexual orientation from the book to the movie. This is coming from someone who's seen the movie twice and read the book and discussed the book and movie with many friends; I'm about to see the movie a third time, so if needed, I can jot down the exact quote Frobisher says indicating he doesn't have sexual interest in Jocasta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat spasms (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe the solution is to report a false positive to Cluebot ng. I've never tried to do that so I don't know how effective it is. (I've seen the movie once and am on my second reading of the book now. Coincidentally, I'm on chapter 10 right now.)-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  20:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reported it as a false positive. I also got a message saying that my IP might be prevented from making edits to the page if I keep it up, so hopefully it records the false positive. I saw the movie a third time on Friday and noted parts of the quote Robert Frobisher says in the movie on having sex with Jocasta. He says tells Sixsmith not to worry and that, "It is only a carnal act" that is "done in service" and says that women's hearts like their desires still "remain a mystery to me." In other words, he doesn't understand heterosexual love and only has sex with Jocasta to please her, not himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat spasms (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Frobisher doesn't say he "doesn't have sexual interest in" Jocasta; you're reading too much into it and hearing what you want to hear. He only says something along the lines of not being able to understand their (women's) hearts and minds (or desires). I don't remember the exact line, but I believe the intent is to convey that he has no idea what a woman wants out of a relationship. Regardless of all of this, he does say "Jocasta and I have become LOVERS." Do you need much more proof than that? Moreover, it's made clear that this is not just a one time thing. If this were turned around, and a male character was seen in love with a woman for the the majority of the duration but had even a single encounter with another male, everyone would be SCREAMING bisexual, but here you are insisting that he's gay while he maintains a steady sexual relationship with a woman. He doesn't seem to be forced into it, it doesn't seem to be a one time experiment, it doesn't look to be an activity he engages in for some substantial extraneous reward...the only conclusion to be drawn from what the movie gives us is that he has sex with her because he enjoys it.

I think the takeaway message here is that he clearly feels more connected to other men on an emotional/relationship-type level, but this doesn't preclude his ability to enjoy the actual act of having sex with a woman. He might be bisexual with a slant, but undeniably bisexual. I personally believe that this is included in the film to continue dispelling the notion of "black and white." By being "just gay," in a way he's as "trapped" as everyone who's "just straight." I think his bisexuality is specifically pointed to in order to convey his transcendence above the typical dichotomy. Patrick of J (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
The introduction to this article states that the film has "polarised" critics, but then the Critical Reception section gives four outstanding reviews and just one critical one. If the film has truly polarised critics, there should be even coverage given, because "polarised" means exactly that. It doesn't mean "most reviews were good but this one guy didn't like it". 82.17.7.9 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Locations in Adam Ewing
Is Chatham Island clearly identified? In the novel, Giles Horrox is a missionary on Raiatea, where the Prophetess stops enroute to Honolulu. It seems to me that Chatham and Raiatea have been combined, Honolulu is omitted, and that the vessel arrives in San Francisco, where Adam greets his wife.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The lead needs to be discussed. Right now it shows as this: Cloud Atlas is a 2012 German science fiction and drama film written and directed by Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer. As stated above in this talkpage, there is many countries involved in this production, so putting one country in the lead is useless. Also, at one time this film was described as an epic adventure-drama film. I think that better suits it. While there are science-fiction elements to it, the whole film can't be described as sci-fi.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources referring to it that, then perhaps add it. But I'd wait for descriptions of the genre after the film's released as judging what a film belongs to without having seen it sounds a bit foolish. And, i'm not sure what you are referring to the production country, we are only really finding Germany as it's production company. Can you point out what we are missing out here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire film doesn't have to take place in a science fiction setting for it to be classified as science fiction. Approximately a third of Cloud Atlas is set in the future, and the other two thirds are intimately interwoven with the futuristic segments. It's undeniable that the film as a whole deals heavily with plausible imaginary content – isn't that basically the definition of the science fiction genre? (I suppose the focus on reincarnation could shift the film into science fantasy territory, but that's another discussion.) —Flax5 19:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically all sources concur with the genre being Science Fiction (among other genres) - as well as being the "most expensive German film of all time".--IIIraute (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean Germany is the only country involved. Its also the "most expensive independent film of all time", so its going to be backed up by multiple studios. I like the science-fantasy genre. I think it works.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't neccisarily disagree with your genre analysis, but you need sources per WP:SOURCE to back it up. No original research allowed. We'd need a source on the countries of production. We have three in the infobox currently which describe it as a German film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo, Genre: Sci-Fi → . Screen Daily, Quote: "...for such an ambitious project initiated and developed out of Germany..." → . --IIIraute (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! Movies, Genre: Adaptation, Drama, Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Produced In United States→--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yahoo, nice! ...well, that's obviously wrong, the movie was filmed at Studio Babelsberg, → copyright, World: © 2012 Cloud Atlas Production GMBH and X Filme - America and Canada : © 2012 Warner Bros. Pictures (distribution). The lead says: science fiction and drama film, so what's the problem?--IIIraute (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Really now? And what makes ScreenDaily so right and Yahoo so wrong? Hell, you can't even read the damn article without scribing. SPAM anyone? Also, notes that it said Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Please IIIraute, if you want to contribute to this discussion, please be conservative for time and logic.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...can you read this → ,,,?? Could you please provide a broadsheet newspaper article or specialist journal or something like the Toronto International Film Festival (WP:RS) stating that is isn't a German film? I mean, the film premiered at the 37th Toronto International Film Festival, don't you think they'll know → ← ?? --IIIraute (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Screen Daily is a magazine that focuses on foreign film business. I think they would be more aware of the production company than something not so film specific like Yahoo! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what makes Yahoo not so qualified? It is owned by Yahoo and all of its content is edited by them. And i'm sorry, but if i can't even read the article on Screen Daily, then i don't think its allowed to be a source. But if you need more sources, here are links that says it is a also a American and Hong Kong production: --Norgizfox5041 (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do not need to be available online in order to be cited in the article. Also, the Toronto International Film Festival, being in Canada, could consider a US film to be international. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving the chat back a bit, Reelviews doesn't give any suggestion that it's a professional source. It looks like a blog almost. Same with KillerMoviewReviews. None of them even have an about section suggesting they are professional. It looks like they are pulling their country information from IMDb, which is not acceptable for us as we do not consider IMDb a reliable source. Sometimes Screen Daily has articles you need to sign in for, but that's not the problem. If you copy+paste the URL into google, you'll be able to view their page. So far we have 6 or so high quality sources stating at least Germany. Also Goethean, the title of TOronto's festival isn't important (they show local Canadian films too) but they cited the production company as Germany on the article.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your second source also only describes the production companies as two German companies:A Company AG and X Filme Creative Pool GmbH, which is what country of production is based off. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what? Never mind, i'm done. Do what you want. This is just pointless. I have better articles to fix.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're way off the mark here, norgizfox. For one, asking what prevents Yahoo from being a reliable source is laughable. I'd say the fact that most of their content comes from ordinary folk and not real journalists is probably the main thing that makes it an unreliable source (coincidentally, this is also what makes Wikipedia an unreliable source). The film was funded pretty much entirely by German organizations and backers (including the German government itself) and principally shot in Germany. This is what makes it a German film. Use some common sense.Brakoholic (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Casting controversy section
Considering two editors have now removed this and two have re-added the section, it seems appropriate to discuss this, as I suggested to one of the editors yesterday. While I don't disagree that one group MANAA has been largely responsible for the accusation of "yellowface," this accusation has been widely covered by reliable secondary sources:, , , , , ,. There are dozens of others, possibly hundreds. This might be WP:UNDUE, but to me it certainly looks as if it meets the standard of coverage for inclusion, and certainly deserves discussion before removal. If the Anti-Defamation League or the NAACP was raising this issue, and the issue was covered in reliable sources as this has been, I suspect we'd be including this, even if merely one organization had brought the issue to public attention. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Every tiny peep gets covered by "multiple reliable sources" these days. It's still just one organization that published a press release, and a bunch of news sites turning that press release into an article. That's it. That's worth a sentence somewhere in the article, at best. --Conti|✉ 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "controversy" doesn't deserve an entire section. Perhaps a short subsection under release, heavily cited. Organizations like MANAA, NAACP, and ADL have as one of their functions to raise (what they see as valid) issues like this when they seem to be ignored by the press. If the issue gets significant coverage, it may be suitable for inclusion. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with BusterD's suggestion of a short subsection under release. No need for an entire section. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say a sentence would be enough. A subsection invites editors to expand said section until it's as big as the one I removed. --Conti|✉ 17:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A single sentence will do.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  18:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a place for a single sentence which is appropriate unless the section "critical reception" looks ok. Here's a draft for discussion: "Advocacy group MANAA sharply criticized the film for the use of what it labelled 'yellowface' makeup to allow non-Asian actors to portray Asian characters in the neo-Seoul sequences.[cite][cite][cite]" Comments? BusterD (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure we need the "sharply" in there, but otherwise it looks good. --Conti|✉ 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with your sentence BusterD. Good work; it is informative and neutral. I can live with "sharply", myself. Thanks! Jus  da  fax   22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved the sentence into it's own subsection for now. Although a subsection might be too much, I think to put it in the Critical response section when they are not film critics is not right. - Kollision (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Standing Ovation
Added standing ovation received by film. Was removed by IP Address user multiple times who claimed it wasn't relevant and shouldn't be included in reaction to the film. It shows how critics who say the film reacted which is significant, so the reasons for removal make no sense, and these things are included in many "critical reaction" areas for films, such as Inglorious Basterds, to give an example. - Jak Fisher, 01:27, 29 December 2012‎

Broadcast Sonmi-451
In the article, it says: "They reveal to her that fabricants like her are "recycled" into food for future fabricants, and hold off a brutal armed assault as she broadcasts this information to the world before her capture." Is it really true that "this information" is what she broadcasts, does she actually mention the food? Maybe she did and I don't remember, I thought it was (just) about the influence of people's lives and actions. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I reduced the specificity; I don't think we could hear Sonmi's words. When the home market release comes (late January?), we'll know for sure.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No 'box office' section?
The film's been out for a while now, isn't it about time someone added a section under 'Reception' about its box office results? It's arguably notable that such a high-profile film turned out to be a box office disappointment. Robofish (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The film hasn't yet been released for most countries. --IIIraute (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't you know that only releases in America - like most things on Wikipedia - count? ;)  I'm reminded of an article on ferrets where somebody argued until they were blue in the face about the legality of ferrets as 'domestic pets' in the US and that only South Carolina defines them as such, and under Californian and (American) 'Common Law' they are defined as wild animals and therefore the article should refer to them as that.  Never mind the rest of the world. *rolleyes*.  Someone rather cleverly replied: "It is not the place of Californian law to decide whether or not ferrets were domesticated some 2,500 years ago, that's a matter of scientific fact".  That made my day. :D  groovygower (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Groovygower, this movie isn't directed strictly to American's venue, it is a international film, even though Warner Bros bought the right to distribute the film, it received a limited initial release, the reason why it stayed behind Argo on box office, the film is marketed to worldwide public. And wikipedia discusses box office world-wide, I felt your statement above a little offensive by the way. Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that Groovygower's first sentence was sarcasm, as evidenced by the smiley and everything that followed... --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

About the title on the infobox
Can we change the title of the infobox to a image, both of them have a textual aspect, so both of them serve the same purpose? I have put it on the article but another editor reverted it. This is how it would look. Thanks in advance. Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am thinking that for accessibility purposes, it would be more appropriate to have the title in plaintext. Besides, the poster already has this title. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Parameter instructions on Template:Infobox film state the name field is for text. The following field, image, is for the movie poster image. I don't see a logo field in the template. I see zero reason to break with usage instructions, and several reasons not to do so. Readers with visual impairments, for example, need the actual text (which can be read by machine). BusterD (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam, Zachry's Brother-in-law
I tagged the character's name because it seems editors have read the self-published cast page and closing credits of the film. The film is a primary source and reading credits could be considered "claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Wikipedia prefers to "base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy…" Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Originally, my edit of the character's entry of "Zachry brother-in-law" to "Zachry's brother-in-law" by adding the singular possessive ( added apostrophe s) based on grammar and the secondary source of IMDb database's listing of the character. Another editor's edit reverted the change by removing the 's with the comment that IMDb is not a reliable source.


 * An editor's addition of "READ ME - Do not make changes to this cast table. All character names are taken directly from the official cast page and the closing credits from the film." appeared on the article's main page under the Casts' section.


 * The film is the primary source.


 * Later, I checked the (self-published source) official casts' page for JIM STURGESS in the article's External Links and character is listed as Zachry's brother-in-law, with the singular possessive.


 * I double checked IMDB database and understand that on 11:18, 30 June 2013‎ Gaarmyvet said the IMDb is judged not reliable; need to find a reliable source to include.


 * I found several secondary sources ; that use the singular possessive when describing the character, as Adam, Zachry's brother-in-law.


 * So, I propose to change the character's name in the description. Please discuss. Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The does cite Sturgess's role as "Adam/Zachry's brother-in-law." I'll accept that long before I accept multiple references to entertainment "news" sites that, imho, practice circular reporting. I don't have a screenshot of the closing credits, but I accept the word of the editors who have cited those credits. Conclusion: The underpaid person at the studio got it wrong OR the underpaid person at the producing organization got it wrong. Is "Zachry brother-in-law" in the patois of the language used on the Big Island? Big Question: What takes precedence, film or webpage? Whichever we finally choose to use, I think a footnote explaining the variance would be appropriate.--  Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  21:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk , Do you have a copy or access to a copy of the film Cloud Atlas? We do still have the issue of primary source. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I still have a copy on my DVR from when I rented it. I'll check and get back to all.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  00:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to stick my nose in in the middle of the conversation, but I just screen capped from my copy and uploaded it here. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 00:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not butting in at all. You saved me some work. Do you have an opinion on movie vs. official web site?-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As reliable as a movie's official site usually is, I think the credits from a copy of the movie are the more reliable option in this case. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 02:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, lets go with the original film's credit list in the case of the brother-in-law for the chart but, in the plot description, we use the correct grammer of possessive singular. What do my fellow editors say? Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That works for me. And I think we've probably documented the discrepancy enough here that a footnote is not needed. Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

this article should discuss more about its R rating and why it is
the article should at least mention its rating and why, it should talk about the several explicitly sexual scenes and the violence and gore e.g. graphic portrayal of someones throat being slit open and someone commiting suicide via shooting themselves in the head, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Names of ships?
There are several transportation devices characterized as ships which feature very prominently in this film. What are their names? I am particularly interested in the ships transporting the main characters to the locations where they appear in the film. EllenCT (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The birthmark
The page isn't mentioning the birthmark that all the key characters have. Was it ever discussed in media? --Cubbi (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cast list box
I notice that bold test is used for some of the character names in the cast listing box but there is no explanation as to what that indicates. If anyone remembers why that was done it would be great if the reasoning could be added. One caveat though - if the reason is that it is a given actors "most prominent role" in the film that would seem to be on the POV side and, per WP:NPOV it might be a good idea to remove the bolding. MarnetteD | Talk 15:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that there was one per column, the meaning of the bold type applied to character names should have been obvious: it indicates the main character of that story (as confirmed by the “Plot” section, just above the box in question). I have reinstated these indications and added an explanation above the box. 66.130.248.96 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO this violates WP:NPOV. Popcornduff (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Intolerance" 1916
This movie reminded me very strongly of D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" (1916) while I was watching, which used 4 interconnected stories. Should this be mentioned? 50.202.81.2 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only worth mentioning if some - ideally more than one - notable commentator (eg a critic) noticed it too. Your own personal observations aren't worthy of an encyclopaedia entry... sorry! Popcornduff (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)