Talk:Repo Men

What year does the movie take place in
I was wondering when in the future does the movie take place because the cars seem to be the same ones that are on the road today, other than the artificial organs and the tools the repo men carry, the movie doesn't seem to futuristic --142.177.226.168 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

2025 --99.192.111.84 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Film title
The Hollywood Reporter calls the film Repossession Mambo, while Variety calls the film The Repossession Mambo. I've redirected The Repossession Mambo to Repossession Mambo for the time being, but if there is an attributable source that can clarify of the film's title is with or without "The", then a move can be made. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The title of the movie is "The Repossession Mambo", and the attributable source is, well, me, Eric Garcia, the co-writer of the script and writer of the novel it's based on. I don't know if I'm breaking wiki protocol here, but rest assured there's a 'The' in the title. The Hollywood Reporter also got the plot a bit wrong; the Variety article is much more accurate, for what it's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.205.26 (talk • contribs) 0:07, June 18, 2007


 * Ah, I wish I could believe you, but it's not within standards to take your word as verifiable. For example, the book The City of Ember will have a film adaptation simply called City of Ember.  I will keep my eye out for further title mention and move it at the soonest opportunity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it's not verifiable, but the production vehicles parked in our condo complex last night where filming was taking place were clearly labelled as "The Repossession Mambo." Ben W Bell   talk  14:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll assume good faith and move the article to The Repossession Mambo -- it's not a huge deal, though it's frustrating to see that citations like this still lack "The" in the title. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say though I see little other sources for it having a The in it to be honest. Ben W Bell   talk  19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Should I remove the request, then, until it can be truly verified? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would. Next time I see them filming around here I'll try and take a picture of the filming notice, that should be sufficiently verifiable then I'd think. Ben W Bell   talk  19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It may also be possible that the title will be changed during production -- this happened with The Seeker (film) and Hancock (film). Likewise, I'll keep an eye out for any information about the title. Somehow, I doubt there'd be much since it's a simple "The". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah well that happens quite often. I think they should change it, but that's just my opinion. Ben W Bell   talk  22:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so Original
Although Jude Law may think this is an oh so original movie, Everything seems just a tad similar to '''REPO! The Genetic Opera.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKoalaKarasu (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And they're filmed adjacent to each other. Must be hilarious to see the producers sneaking on each other's studios to steal ideas, since the plots are basically the same (although Repo! seems to be the stronger candidate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.38.3 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool your jets. Sometimes in the 1970s I recall seeing a comedy film in which a transplanted liver was violently "repossessed." Ah...I remember now - the Pythons' "Meaning of Life." Bustter (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't organ repossession, it was a man with an organ donor's card; the joke was that he was donating it while he was still alive, not that he had bought it or owed any money on it, or that it wasn't his to begin with.68.0.245.146 (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you see Remy and Jake watch the beginning of this scene from "Meaning of Life" at one point. 84.189.211.229 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, 68.0.245.146, it was a long time ago. From this distance, the two do not seem all that dissimilar, nevertheless. Bustter (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Terrence Zdunich and Darren Smith collaborated together to create The Necromerchant's Debt, a 10 minute play which debuted in 2000. The same writers, later adapted the concept into a full length play. Along with director Darren Bousman the team created Repo! The Genetic Opera.  It has been stated, yet unsited, that Eric Garcia and his associates were seen at the original Repo! stage plays.  I will say there are enough differences between Repo! and Repo Men trailer that it isn't a direct copy, but there are enough exact similarities, I find it hard to swallow that it was completely independent, especially when it was created and produced in the same town. --Necrolotu 19:00 4 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrolotu (talk • contribs)

According to Eric Garcia, he has been developing this idea as a noir novel and film since 1997. Considering the credit that was flowing freely until recent times, it's not all that hard a concept to concurrently develop. I am interested in seeing the film, especially because of the short essay at the back of the book describing the concurrent creation of the film and the novel. Eric Garcia freely admits that what works on screen may not work for a book, and vice versa; Remy has only two ex-wives in the film, and five ex-wives in the book, for example, and is not mentioned by name even once in the course of the narrative. That's hard to do well, but I never even noticed until after I had finished the book. --BlueNight (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The above comment about Terrence and Darren's play in 2000 is not fully correct. It originated in the early 90s as the Necromerchant's debt (a 10 minute opera, as they self titled) and became Repo! the stage play in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.131.153 (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Supposed novel
Article currently says, "based on a supposed novel by Garcia, which has yet to be published," but I think "supposed" is a bit snide, implying that the novel may not actually exist, and "yet to be published" is vaguer than necessary. Both amazon.com and the publisher's website list a publication date of March 31, 2009. See . I'm not an "autoconfirmed user", and the page is semi-protected, so I can't edit it, but I would suggest replacement text "based on a novel by Garcia, which is due to be published on March 31, 2009". Jjules (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC) jjules


 * I've removed the non-encyclopaedic comment. Canterbury Tail   talk  03:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been a hardcore Eric Garcia fan ever since Anonymous Rex, so when I saw it on the shelf, I bought a copy of the paperback. This was at Barnes & Noble about two weeks back, and I have just finished reading it, so it definitely has been published. --BlueNight (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The book was published in early April 2009, while Repo! The Genetic Opera was playing as early as May 2002 according to . "A bit [of] snide" is easily understandable since this short story was published 7 years after the play was live and conveniently right before the "Repo Men" hype machine went into full force. A short disclaimer: I have not seen "Repo! The Genetic Opera" in any form, be it film or theater, and i hate musicals with a passion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.185.199 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

REPO! The Genetic Opera
could we reference that REPO! has been a stage play for the past 8 years (atleast) and that the movie, which has some major stars in it, has been out for about a year now. seeing how easily someone could steal the plot concept from Repo! The Genetic Opera saddens me as it is a great movie that these people are ripping off (or in more legal terms: plagarising).


 * The essay at the end of Reposession Mambo (the novel) reveals that Eric Garcia has been developing this as a written work since 1997 (after seeing a Valentines message in a pawn shop window), and since at least 2003 has been working on it as a screenplay. In legal terms, this would be concurrent independent development.  --BlueNight (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, Repo! writer Terrence Zdunich mentioned in an interview with io9.com that he and Darren Smith were writing ten-minute operas around 1999 and 2000, one of which eventually became Repo!. He also mentions Darren's friend's bankruptcy as partial inspiration.  Unless legal action is taken, this is probably our best sourcing for this article.  --BlueNight (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. REPO! didn't sue because they have NO case in court. The two ideas, even though similar, don't come close in plot. If you remove the concept of organs and replace the motive to kill, the plots are no more similar than two novels about mob hitmen. The plots aren't similar at all. Repo men: a guy that performs hits, then gets a transplant, then decides to defend transplantees. REPO!, a girl has a disease from her father who is a repo man, and the search for a cure while being tracked down by the owner of the company (to be chosen as a heir). If REPO! is similar to Repo men, then REPO! is similar to Metropolis. If we're going to start crying for plagiarism at similar concepts, then everything is guilty of plagiarizing The Twilight Zone. Then Blackhawk Down can sue Behind Enemy Lines. Compare The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film) and The Day the Earth Stopped. There is real plagiarism. --Cflare (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoever the guy is who wrote the above paragraph needs to seriously get a grip.Notonly is he blatantly contradicting himself he doesn't even realise the context of what he's talking about

BHD and BEL's were both films made out of REAL LIFE EVENTS that actually happened. you can't plagiarise real life. The argument as to why repo! and repomen "isn't" plagiarism is no different from the one he makes for day the earth stopped et al.Only difference being his subjective opinion. This sort of thing happens all the time in Hollywood.Someone claiming they stole their idea. What makes it legitimate is that both films got made and the plots are actually both identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.226.193 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The main controversy is with the book the Repossession Mambo, on which this film was based, and so should be mentioned on that article if there is one 86.19.203.76 (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I say mention the controversy and mention it in as neutral a way as possible. Do not try to use Garcia's essay at the end of Garcia's book to argue that there is no controversy. This is a biased source. If I had plagiarized somebody's work of course I would try to write an essay that led people to believe that I had not plagiarized anything. Connor Behan (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Behan. However it is done, some mention of the basic plot similarities among "Liver Donor," "Repo," Garcia's novel, "Repo Men" (2) and any other related stories or articles from early or late SF ought to be at least mentioned, if for no other reason than that people are going to keep looking at the two different film entries, and say "Are these two things related?" It would also be a positive mention for any ideas of encyclopedic completeness one might value as a standard.Rtelkin (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Cleanup
I think the opening paragraph could use some cleanup. Specifically:

I would change "In 2003, screenwriters Eric Garcia and Garrett Lerner began collaborating with Miguel Sapochnik on a screenplay based on a novel being written by Garcia, which has since been published as of March 31, 2009." to "In 2003, screenwriters Eric Garcia and Garrett Lerner began collaborating with Miguel Sapochnik on a screenplay based on Garcia's then-unfinished novel, 'The Repossession Mambo'. (The novel had been published as of April 2009.) The original announcements were made under the same name as the novel, but the title was changed to "Repo Men!" during 2009."

The comment "However, this movie also happens to be oddly similar to the plot of Repo! The Genetic Opera, which had been created in the early 1990s, and didn't see film release until 2008." is a little snarky and presumptive of bad faith on the part of Garcia and company. I think the wording could be much improved without denigrating the Repo! fans, and thus made more encyclopedia-worthy, by changing it to something like this: "The movie has elements that are similar to that of Repo! The Genetic Opera, causing claims of plagiarism by its fans. Garcia, in an essay at the end of Repossession Mambo, says that he had developed this as a written work since 1997 (after seeing a Valentines message in a pawn shop window), and had worked on it since at least 2003 as a screenplay."

Thanks. Jdfreivald (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually we cannot mention any similarities unless we can reliably source those criticisms. We cannot provide our own analysis here on Wikipedia, and cannot interpret like that. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the sentence about the similarity between these films from the "production" information on this film, since it has to do with the concept of the film rather than the production of it. I haven't added it anywhere else, but if someone wants to add a more encyclopedic reference, this is the only somewhat notable source I found for the comparison: a post at io9. -Dayv (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt that citations are needed for such objective and undeniable observations as their shared concept of organ repossession. That's like needing a citation for "the sky and the ocean are both blue"; as long as we have a source for "the sky is blue" and a source for "the ocean is blue", we can safely say that they share that trait. --Daniel Draco (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that somebody should also create a different page for The Repossession Mambo(book) so that all the information the film is based on is covered.

A better comparison of the VARIOUS similarities can be found here: it's not just the organ thing, it's many ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.149.97 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that at this point the article does not reference the idea that this movie may be copying or inspired by either the original 'Necromerchant' short opera or "Repo!: The Genetic Opera" makes this article feel incomplete in a rather major way. Could I suggest placing some reference to the widely held belief that it was at the very least inspired by, if not directly used as source material, for Repo Men be added in some fashion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.80.48 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we need proper reliable references for the similarities, if they are even relevant. Also remember, there is usually no original ideas, but no other films mention how they are similar to others. Canterbury Tail  talk  23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This film has been awaiting release for two years. —  Mike   Allen   23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Filming only really finished two years ago, then there's all the post production to be done. It has been delayed, but not by two years. Canterbury Tail   talk  03:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Source. "The movie cost $32 million and has been awaiting a release date for about two years — an unusually long time -- since production was  completed."  —  Mike   Allen   03:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, now there's one that I know for a fact is incorrect, however cannot provide references to back it up. They stopped filming around my area just over two years ago, so the film can only possibly have been sitting around a year or just fractionally more. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We really, truly do not need a citation for the similarities. See my above comment. It logically follows that if Repo Men is about organ repossession, and that Repo! is about organ repossession, then they have that plot point in common. --Daniel Draco (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

the OPENING PARAGRAPH could do with a cleanup??? what about the fact that this is yet another film page where someone doesn't understand the difference between a summary and an encyclopedic description of every plot element in the film? people wanting a plot summary are again left with the option of "sci-fi thriller" from the introduction, or reading miles of drivel. if we can't round up people who write these dire movie articles and gas them, when is wikipedia going to get around to banning them from editing movie pages, so that normal people can read the sort of plot summaries that people with writing skills have been making for decades? there's no reason that content like this couldn't be moved to it's own specialized wiki-tedious-plot-exposition, where people with the time to watch a movie but who don't actually have a copy to watch can read the creative output of people without lives or a comprehension of plot summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.176.173 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Title
This has just been moved to another title. Does anyone have a reference stating the film has been renamed? Canterbury Tail  talk  11:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternate reality game
Associated with the release is a sizable alternate reality game. Within minutes of the beginning, dozens of fans had already set up a system of communication on Twitter. Wired has had a large part in this, contributing a fan base from the recent string of stories based on people who leave their lives behind and attempt to disappear. Lone Shark Games, started in part by Mike Selinker, designed the game.

The game involves hunters and runners. Four people were selected from entrants to drop their lives for a month and attempt to evade the hunters. Each runner must complete a task each day; the location of any runners that do not complete the task assigned will be revealed on "ARGUS", a website dedecated to supplying hunters with information.

The cooperation between WIRED, Lone Shark Games, and Universal Pictures has yet to prove a success, but nevertheless should be stated on the wiki page. Patron Vectras (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot section removed.
Copyvio Half  Shadow  21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-added plot, using my own words. Stop being so lazy. Half  Shadow  22:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — Mike   Allen   22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate lead
The lead says that this is a sci-fi thriller, but it is only that on the surface. The futuristic, Dickian action movie veneer is very thin, and this film is clearly a black comedy. It goes to pretty great pains to make this clear throughout the entire production, and anyone taking it as a serious sci-film rather than wry commentary on our own present society has badly missed the point. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That only works if reliable sources are calling it that, and most are calling it a sci-fi thriller. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo calls it a Sci-Fi action.  —  Mike   Allen   22:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. So find the sources, if you [plural] care about the film and the article (I don't; I do care that the lead in a WP article is giving blatantly false information, but my own to-do list here is already longer than my probable lifespan will allow me to complete). I find it exceedingly unlikely that all notable reviewers would have completely missed the comedic nature of pretty much every other scene and of the exaggerated theme itself. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: See HalfShadow's comment above about effort. This took just a few moments. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes calls it a Science-Fiction/Fantasy Which they get from the reviewers (listed there). Reliable sources point to Science-Fiction.  Information doesn't have to be "true", it just has to be verifiable, and that's what the reliable sources verify it as, not black comedy.  —  Mike   Allen   00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You evidently did not look at the links I provide, which give a large number of sources calling it a black comedy, dark comedy and/or satire. They aren't mutually exclusive. Dark Star is both a sci-fi and black comedy film.  That Repo Men is also both is clearly sourceable. Unless someone pings me, I'm not going to bother reading or replying further here, since I've proven my point. I'll leave it to someone else to fix the lead, since I get the sense I'll get editwarred with if I attempt to do it. It's really unusual to point out an obvious flaw in a article and even provide links to sources, only to get browbeaten for doing so. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Political Implications
This movie was released soon after the US Health Care bill passed. The question must be asked of whether political biases led to a film with a premise of privatized health care leading to a system in which Repo Men travel around unregulated and thus causing the deaths of numerous people through "collections". The movies release date was moved from April 2 to March 19th in early February.

At a NYC press event, Collider quoted actor Liev Schreiber who plays corporate boss Frank as saying "Frank becomes distracted and consumed with the bottom line,” and he (Schreiber) also drew the parallels between Frank and employees of the current pharmaceutical industry who “are not holding themselves responsible for people’s deaths when they can’t afford their medications.” Additionally, Schreiber says, I liked that they were trying to reference social and political issues 20 years into the future,” Schreiber said. “Clearly it deals with the credit issue in a very dark way. And what’s so chilling about it is that it’s not too far from the truth. The idea that people are dying in this country for health care is real."

Actor Jude Law also states, “The more interesting thing to the film is how corporations will sell you things that are bad for you, because then they can sell you things that are good for you.” In an interview on the Daily Show with John Stewart on March 16th 2010 between Law and Stewart, Stewart recognized the ridiculousness of applying this film to the health care debate parodying the relevance of this movie to the outlandish claims on the current national health care debate, saying "we (the United States) is about to pass a law that requires Christians to give organs to gay people."

Jcolorado2424 (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
It seems to me that when someone receives an injury due to work-related equipment failure, this should be labeled an industrial accident. Aren't there laws that tell companies to cover all health expenses their employees might need resulting from industrial accidents? --85.146.209.49 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the movie is supposed to take place in the US, I think companies are allowed to deny compensation down there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.66.152 (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Who plays Frank?
And shouldn't he be listed in the cast-section? He is not unknown (X-Men, Salt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.197.254 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)