Talk:Evolution (2001 film)

Comedy
Some moviegoers were disillusioned with the blatant product placement in the movie, combined with the almost comical portrayal of some characters and of science.

Forgive me, but isn't this movie a comedy? Removing. 24.177.49.54 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary
The plot summary was very large indeed, so I've replaced it with an adequate but much briefer version from an older revision. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs revising...
The plot summary --I didn't read further-- is a train wreck with its misspellings and run-on sentences. --Joe Webster (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Andromeda Strain
Maybe some mention should be made of how this movie is essentially a comedic version of the Andromeda Strain, considering all the identical plot points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.39.207 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point! 75.48.21.125 (talk)

Rotten Tomatoes
Too much attention is given to Rotten Tomatoes. It is the only review mentioned and, frankly, I doubt anyone takes the site very seriously or bothers what sort of reception a film gets from it. 75.48.21.125 (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know this is old, but to be clear Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator, not a single random review site. 75.76.162.89 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars 3
Please note that David Duchovny was purportedly offered a role in Star Wars episode 3. Unfortunately some editors have decided the source is wrong and that they know better and it must have been Star Wars episode 2. They have not provided other sources.

They are not only ignoring the source (ABC news, repeating a story originally from Empire magazine) they are also making assumptions and doing their own original research based on the timelines. Big films are planned years ahead of time and an actor could be required to commit well in advance of filming. Evolution just happened to be one of the things that was keeping Duchovny busy, and really Star Wars has nothing to do with this film.

We need to follow what the sources actually say or remove this from the article entirely. -- 109.76.203.32 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Found a link on the Empire website, they were reporting on "a French internet chat" interview with Duchovny. But again they claim it was Star Wars episode 3.
 * We don't get to decide the sources are wrong and write something else instead. Ultimately it isn't actually relevant to this film and this article probably should not mention it at all. -- 109.76.203.32 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Some editors are still determined to ignore the sources and insist it was Star Wars 2. Both the ABC news article and the Empire magazine article say Star Wars 3. Frankly the claim that Duchovny specifically turned down a role in Star Wars 3 to do this film is a misrepresentation of the source. Duchovny only says he is busy with many projects. -- 109.77.198.222 (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the ABC News article with the upstream Empire magazine source that it was based on. I removed the misleading claim that Duchovny turned down Star Wars to be in Evolution specifically, and instead wrote about something the source did say: his motivation to break out from the X-Files. Star Wars 2 or Star Wars 3, it doesn't matter, it's not relevant to this film. -- 109.77.193.103 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael J Fox
The article included an unsourced claim that Ivan Reitman wanted to cast Michael J Fox. I was unable to find a source to support this claim. I did find a source that says Ivan Reitman had wanted to cast Fox in Space Jam. I removed the claim, but editors can always add it back if they can find a reliable source. -- 109.76.203.32 (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Three eyed smiley face
The film featured a 3 eyed smiley face in its poster and other marketing materials.

The article used to include a claim that the filmmakers had to license the image from the comic book Transmetropolitan but it was removed because it was unsourced.

I have tried unsuccessfully to find sources to support that claim but with no success (and tried again). I highlight it here in the hope that maybe some else can verify (or debunk) the claim. -- 109.77.193.103 (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

More sources
I was trying to find more sources about the Production of this film and particularly the VFX. Not much luck. (The TODO list at the top of this page does list three magazines to use and I've added those as references already. Maybe other editors could make more use of those sources to expand the article but they aren't quite what I was looking for.)

Apparently though this film did get a mention in American Cinematographer July 2001, Evolution page 44. (According to an index sheet I found at the Internet Archive.) Steven Spielberg's AI was on the cover that issue, and it says "Evolution adds humor to alien invasion". For many older issues the table of contents includes a description of the articles but not for any of the 2001 issues. I would guess that presumably the article is primarily about cinematographer Michael Chapman who was also cinematographer on Ghostbusters II. In other articles about Chapman it mentions in general his how he adjusts technique for comedies, but doesn't change much..

I did find that as many films do, this got a novelization titled Ivan Reitman's Evolution by Eleanor Fremont, David Weissman, David Diamond.

I also found the book "A Sense-of-Wonderful Century" which wishes the could have changed the ending, suggesting instead it should have concluded with the development of intelligent civilized aliens who would politely apologize for all the trouble and leave.

But that's all for now as I've spent too much time on this already... -- 109.76.197.121 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Distribution…
While the AFI's source mentions both DW and CPI as distributors, the latter didn’t co-distribute in the States, so I found the film info on the BBFC's website and specified the distributors (DW domestic, CTFD rest of the world), is it possible that we can retain the sources (both AFI and BBFC) on the infobox, or revert. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you just change the distributors into production companies when the source doesn't say that? And the BBFC source just says who the British distributor is, which is irrelevant on an American film.  It doesn't say anything about the American distributor who handled international distribution.  Anyone could have distributed it in France, Japan, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)