Talk:Empire of the Sun (film)

Plot summary
The plot summary was marked as overlong some times ago. I've trimmed it a bit, but it's still too detailed. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Current edit-war taking place
I've been watching the English vs Welsh edit-war that's currently taking place. I thought Christian Bale was Welsh? How can he be a Welsh actor at one point in his career and then evolve into an English actor? If I was an actor (I'm English) and I moved to America, I'd still be classed as an English actor, surely? Someone please elaborate, thanks —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryan, I don't consider this an edit war, but he is listed as a Welsh-born English actor but at the time of his audition, he was only identified as a young "Welsh actor" which is the arcane point I think I am making since the original statement indicated "at the time" of the audition. Very minor issue indeed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC).
 * That's what I don't understand, how can one be a Welsh-born Englishmen when they're two separate countries. Surely they must be one or the other. I always assumed Bale to be Welsh, not English —— RyanLupin • (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too, but that's the moniker that appears with him in another Wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC).

Willingness for GA status
Since the slight edit conflict is over between me (Wildroot) and Bzuk, I think this article can be ready to go to WP:GAN. Since Alientraveller is an extraordinary editor and has done "polishes" on my various GA articles before nomination, I will ask him for some mild consultant help. I still have one small (sort of) problem. I feel Empire of the Sun is a small article at 22,000 bytes (there's nothing wrong with that), thus we do not really need a lead that big. My original lead is found here, but Bzuk concurred. Anyway, any concerns can be addressed here before I ask of Alientraveller. Cheers. &mdash;Wildroot (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The current lede is not large, it is, in fact, almost exactly the same size as the old lede. According to Microsoft Word: Old lede - 187 words, 973 characters, 1158 characters with spaces Current lede - 183 words, 893 characters, 1173 characters with spaces. So the current lede is four words shorter than the old lede. The current lede is preferable, as it's organized somewhat better, and reads more fluidly.  No change of lede is necessary. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, whatever. Anything else anyone? &mdash;Wildroot (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the structure I think it's best to stick to individual film style guidelines but Ed Fitzgerald has some wacky ideas (like giving the actors who small roles their own little subsection). He also reverted my edits without providing no explanation. According to those guidelines, the Themes go before the reception as well. Maye we should get Erik (he designed the style guidelines, I think) involved before we settle this edit conflict that Ed has now become a part of. &mdash;Wildroot (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, whatever. "Guidelines" are just what they say, guidance, not absolute dogma to be slavishly followed. My "wacky" idea is that the article should have a layout that is designed to present information to the reader in a logical way: first we present an opening section briefly describing the film (the lede) and giving the most salient facts about (the infobox), then we plunge into a more detailed description of the film.  First, we give the plot, then tell who was in the film, followed by a discussion of its reception and the awards it garnered.  Now that we've presented the film itself, we can discuss its contents (themes, analysis, whatever).  Finally, we wrap up the article with all that bottom stuff. Given this scheme, it makes little sense to have a meta-discussion about the film (themes) before you've actually finished discussing the film itself. As for the "cast notes", the intention of this subsection is to deal with minor or interesting cast information that doesn't easily fit into a straight-forward cast list.  It doesn't have to be a formal sub-section (in fact I've only started doing that recently because some people seemed to prefer it), so I'll convert it to a non-section, it that's what's wanted. Regarding who you get in, it makes no difference to me, I'm willing to talk to anyone about anything, and Erik is a fine editor, even though we sometimes disagree.  However, please note that the "argument from authority" carries very little weight with me.  Erik, like every other editor, needs to present logical, reasonable and convincing arguments, not simply point to a guideline (which I don't believe he would do in any case, knowing his work). Finally, I apologize for undoing your edit without an edit summary - it's a bad habit that I'm trying to break myself of, with somewhat less than satisfactory results. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk.&mdash;Wildroot (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC) On a lighter note, do you think it's really important to have those two paragraphs separated in the lead? I don't think it's a big deal one way or another. It just kind of bothers me for some reason and since I worked on this article, I deserve some credibility. Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe I'm being paranoid.&mdash;Wildroot (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, I think it's better separated. The material in the last graf doesn't much relate to where the second graf has gone to, so passing from one thought to the other in the same paragraph would just be awkward.  It's because the second graf starts as being about production matters - which would OK to move into filming locations from - but then gets into a more analytical stance, comparing Speilberg to Ballard, and it's wierd to go from that back into production. On the other hand, the filming location stuff doesn't really need to be there at all, as long as it's covered in the body of the article, so you could drop that and tack the last sentence (not a hit) onto the second paragraph. Let me try that and see what you think. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've done that, with some adjusting, and moved the sentence about locations into production. The lede may be a little sparse now, but I can live with it if you think it's better. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this is splendid. I'll see if there's any valuable info from The China Odyssey, then ask Alientraveller to do an "article polish". Then nominate for GA-status. Wildroot (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Themes
All other contributors have rightly identified major problems with the bold statements in this section and the confusing structure of the sentence quoted at the start of the paragraph below. This is the article for the film, not the book. Whether or not the book may have references to escape themes, Jim's preoccupation with flight and aeroplanes predates his internment, and the other sensory cues accompanying aeroplane scenes are not evocative of danger or tension. Both of these facts fail to support an unsourced statement that flying symbolises the possibility and danger of escape. Far less tenuous claims about the flying theme could be made, not drawing on extraneous symbolism, but rather than replace the current content with more modest assertions, it is instead requested that the existing contribution be clarified or referenced. Rather than replace one assertion with another, the disputed contents in this section could be greatly improved by demonstrating that it is not original research, but sourced from a reputable review or analysis which can form the basis of one perspective of the film's themes, or else the unsourced material should be removed. -Ticker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.119.69.17 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Flying symbolizes Jim's possibility and danger to escape from the prison camp." This sentence simply doesn't make any sense. I would rewrite or delete it myself, but I have only a slight familiarity with the film (hence I was looking at the page) - enough to be sure flying is indeed an important theme but not enough to address the symbolism with any confidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.215.255 (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably a metaphor or something. Wildroot (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a metaphor, and I don't think it's too presumptuous to draw that metaphor, but I feel that the wording of the sentence isn't clear enough. "Jim's possibility and danger to escape..."?  This is simply grammatically incorrect. Wakata  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.114.228 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical alterations & accuracy
This film contains many alterations (from historical facts and from the book) and fictionalizations, one being the fact that the young boy sees with A-bomb explosion from China. I have read many different articles on the films inaccuracies and would think it would be of benefit to the read to have some of these highlighted... thoughts? --Jason Gaudet (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A section on historical accuracy can indicate aspects of the production where errors were made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC).
 * I wish you good luck, just remember Wikipedia's policy on citing sources. I'll admit to screwing up sometimes. I always wanted to get around to something like this, but I was lazy. I intend to read J. G. Ballard's sometime in June. Should be fun and interesting. Wildroot (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lunghua??
I think that Lughua may be the facility that Jamie & Basie are taken to immediately following their capture, where they await transport to Soochow Creek outside the city. When I looked at the coordinates on Google Earth they showed a location w/in the city of Shanghai but wouldn't the air base & the camp be well out of the city limits? Tommyt (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, both Jim and Basie are transferred to Soochow Creek Internment Camp shortly after Lunghua. I added that detail, but it was removed as being "unnecessary". Whoever edits this page needs to watch the movie again. Donniewan75 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits because you added a great deal of detail to the plot, not simply mention of Suzhou Creek. You also misspelled the name.  It is now fixed. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-adding that. I spelled the camp's name "Soochow", because that's how it's spelled in the film during an establishing shot of the camp shortly after Jim and Basie were transferred. The prisoners probably Anglicized the original "Suzhou" or it was an unintentional mistake made by the filmmakers.Donniewan75 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some kind of parenthetical comment about the misspelling might be appropriate, if a source can be found. However the "note" I just removed is not appropriate because it offers an editor's speculation in the place of a source. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with this--"Soochow" is not a misspelling, but instead the prevailing romanization of the time rendered the name "Suzhou Creek" as "Soochow Creek". Because it is (1) the proper name of the camp and (2) the way the name appears in the movie, the name should be rendered "Soochow Creek" for the same reason that "Lunghua" is rendered as it is instead of "Longhua" as the modern romanization would render it.  It's just like how the official english name of "Suzhou" University is the "incorrect" Soochow University.  Mingjai (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Removing the note was not necessary, simply change it to the factual basis of the use of the name: "Soochow". Reversion is reserved for vandalism. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

Small revenue
There may be a number of films similar to this. But in the case of Empire of the Sun, this may raise a great deal of questions to some. In other words, it's pretty hard to believe how such a state-of-the-art film only generated a small revenue, considering other movies around its time made money that are off the charts. Therefore, I figure this needs to be explained in the article. 210.4.121.23 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't. Some movies do not find an audience, and it is not for us to speculate as to why that is. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  05:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Not a box office success"
It's probably not proper English to say "not a box office success" in the beginning of this article. I mean a film is considered successful in the box office if the gross revenue is greater than the budget. But if you're going to add "not" in the description, it would most likely mean the other way around. As for the film mentioned in this article, the revenue may not be as much as its creators had hoped for but it still exceeded the budget. Therefore, I suggest the beginning of the article to use a different definition. 111.125.93.47 (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The film was not a success initially but over time, revenues grew. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC).


 * "a film is considered successful in the box office if the gross revenue is greater than the budget"
 * That is not a safe assumption. The production budget is only part of the cost of of a film, distribution and marketing costs and more can more than double the final total. Hollywood accounting means we must be very very careful about making any claims about success unless they are backed up with a reliable source. It is only a very rough rule of thumb, but admittedly it is less of a stretch to say the film was not a box office success, or not as sucessful as the filmmakers had hoped. If at all possible please source it just to be on the safe side. -- Horkana (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's been done, original box office receipts were disappointing but later releases to foreign and home media markets made up the difference. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * None of these changes are necessary. The lede only needs to say that the film was not a success, with a source that says so.  Any other nonsense about home media, especially since it is not mentioned in the source, should be left out.  Further discussion of domestic versus foreign box office, home media, etc., can be dealt with in the body of the article.  The lone opinion of the anonymous user above is no basis for changing the article.  The film was not initially a success at the box office, this is accurate. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Paywall
I'm not sure how best to approach this, there is a source in the article that is no longer easily accessed as it is behind a paywall. The link uses the reference name "child" and is to a New York Times article. I figure this should be tagged in some way, but I struggle to remember the approriate template. Unfortunately the article was not backed up using Webcitation.org before the link became unvailable but the article does seem to be temporarily available in the google cache: FILM; Spielberg at 40: The Man and the Child so it may yet be possible to backup a copy of it before it disappears. If perhaps one of the editors who regularly checks this article has access to the New York Times archives that would be good but often malicious editors will slip in unsourced changes if the source itself is difficult to check. --Horkana (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source code is here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I tried the original link which failed, before going to the google cache link includes the original link. Perhaps the link works in your location but (I am not in the United States and) but to be absolutely clear all I get is a message asking me to "Please log in".
 * Perhaps it is just Registration_required and not a more strict Paywall as I initially thought it was, there doesn't seem to be convenient template to mark the latter type of links. -- Horkana (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the new link works, just try it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Login requested every time. Must not be free for international readers. -- Horkana (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that, at least in the States, all NYT pages now require registration. This could be a major problem for the thousands of articles that use NYT as a source.  Is there some centralized discussion of this issue? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There might be, but I'm not aware of one. I suppose I could ask on an admin page if i was really interested. As it stands I resist the tempatation to tag them with Dead link (which WP:SOURCEACCESS prohibts anyhow) and in most cases I tag them Registration required but it isn't always clear if when it is just Registration or actually a full Paywall, but I suppose the tag covers both? I have seen some articles that claim to require registration but if you find them through google news you get allowed in once you have extra "affiliate" junk at end of the link.
 * Not so much of a problem in established articles but Hollywood reporter moves it's links around a lot, it's pretty much a necessity to back up links using webcitation.org or the link will be broken after a few weeks. Variety.com doesn't require registration - in theory - but if you visit their page frequently in a day you will be confronted by a nag screen that makes it look a whole lot like you do need to register. These things get discussed on the talk pages of various film articles but it has not been discussed recently (12-18 months) on the project film talk page as far as I know. -- Horkana (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat, the new link works, just try it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I do not doubt that the New York Times article link works for you Bzuk. It did not and does not work for me, I have tried and retried it and searched for variations on the link which didn't work either. The web is balkanized (BBC, CBS, YouTube, I get told I'm in the wrong region all the time). -- Horkana (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good old coral cache. Was able to get at the article and it is now effectively backed up. -- Horkana (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

misleading/ambiguous lede
I am aware that phrases like "an American film" are commonly used on Wikipedia to mean something that is more or less short for "a movie made by American film-makers" etc. For this film, how-ever, it is confusing, since the modifier "coming-of-age" is inserted, making it sound like it is a movie about either an American child or at least a child in America. Unless one knows about Ballard -- and even then only when one learns that the film is sort of autobiographical -- the misperception is hard to shake. Can't we change this? Kdammers (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't perceive that confusion, but I have no problem with American being removed. In general, I think it is unnecessary in the lede.  Coming-of-age war film is an accurate description. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting
In regard to the current state of the references, is there any reason the two "notes" can't be converted into regular references? Is there some reason they need to be set apart as they are now? Second, the formatting of the bibliography needs to be fixed as the formatting currently italicizes everything, which is not appropriate. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the current formatting style, so I am not comfortable attempting to alter it. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Movie's End
It is clear to me that Spielberg's intended implication at the end of the movie is that the boy is blind. He witnessed the Hiroshima explosion, and suffered flash blindness as a result. Here are the following points: --He had been riding his bicycle inside the building, but moved outdoors into a large empty space, and only rode in circles, and failed to see the American soldiers until he literally ran into them, because of his failing eyesight. --When his parents appear in the holding center, he cannot see them, although he appears to be looking at them. There are prominent flash burn marks around his eyes. He does not appear to recognize his parents until he hears their voices, then has to trace his mother's face to be sure that it's her.

How obvious can you be?

jaknouse (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Empire of the Sun (film). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966149,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124174439/http://www.goldenglobes.org:80/browse/year/1987 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1987

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Empire of the Sun (film). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C966149%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408200704/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1980-1989/60nominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1980-1989/60nominees.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Empire of the Sun (film). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913060828/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/christian_bale_biog.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/biographies/christian_bale_biog.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124081737/http://aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr271106.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr271106.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Critical response / Maslin / Gramatical correction
Apologies if this is in the wrong place or not the way things are usually done. I am very new to this!

I made a recent edit, which I think bears further scrutiny. As it stands, the passage does not form a logically coherent sentence. Whilst the film can be called "a visual splendor", it does not make sense to call the film "a heroic adventurousness" or "an immense scope". It does however make sense to say that the film possesses any of these three things.

You are absolutely right to note that the proposed change alters the meaning of the sentence, but I believe it actually brings the meaning closer in line with what is written in the source material, where Maslin describes these as qualities Spielberg gives to the film.

Again, I'm sorry if this isn't procedure for discussing proposed changes. Please let me know if I should be doing things differently! Regards, Utterly Ineffable (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the perfect place to discuss changes. I’ll review it in more context later. ~ Rhinos F1 (Chat) / (Contribs) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Rhinos F1 (Chat) / (Contribs) 06:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr Rawlins and Infirmary
I disagree with the plot point that the garrison troops attack the infirmary in reprisal for the air raid. I know this is what Rawlins says in the movie, but the character is ignorant of the rationale. Bomb shocks break windows and create flying shards of glass. Intact windows reflect light and help bombers to line up their targets. In an air-raid, the lights should be doused. The garrison action to proactively break all those windows that are going to get broken regardless and to reduce night-time illumination are actually in the best interest of everyone at the camp, British and otherwise. Rawlins misunderstands and tries to stop the sergeant. Jamie interprets him correctly and joins in breaking the windows. 70.51.89.9 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Empire of the Sun (film" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empire_of_the_Sun_(film&redirect=no Empire of the Sun (film] 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. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)