Talk:The Adjustment Bureau

Angels or demons?
The wikipedia article describes the caseworkers as 'Angels', but in reality, the movie never actually confirms this, and rather it hints they are in fact demons. It portrays the caseworkers (for the most part) as 'the bad guys'. And also you wouldn't expect Angels to be sporting back suits (let alone the riot gear worn by some of them). But most importantly there are several references to them losing their power when surrounded by water, which is something usually associated with Demons rather than Angels. So it would seem that them being Angels is simply a presumption stemming from a question raised early in the movie, whereas logically the evidence suggests that they are in fact Demons.

For me one of the overriding themes was that in fact the universe is not that unambiguous and that the "caseworkers" were *neither* angel nor demon - their motives are clearly not entirely malicious, nor entirely benign.178.15.151.163 (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Is internal link to the correct Michael Hackett?
Nothing in the bio suggests involvement with films or relationship to Isa Hackett (which I've assumed was probable). I think there is a need for a disambiguation page or an addition to Hackett's article. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I delinked the two articles for the time being. It was probably linked by me (on autopilot) when creating the article. Alastairward (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Added Executive Producer and Associate Producer using http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/fullcredits as reference. Wanted to reference this for Infobox source of information but didn't know how to add the reference without messing up appearance. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC) a rip off of the matrix 74.70.233.68 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
I removed the section on copyright, which appears to be OR and is virtually unreadable. john k (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is not OR and others find it readable, accurate and informative. It cites "reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." It does not "advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources" other than resolving discrepancy of factual statements in the sources in a NPOV manner using "good research" and "balance" in accordance with NPOV guidelines.


 * I think adding an internal link to chain of title will improve and clarify the section for some readers. A suggestion along those lines would have been welcome. The hasty and apparently unconsidered deletion of the section seems inappropriate and appeared to be vandalism of a sort which has occurred often over the last year or so relating to US Copyright Renewal RE0000190631. The most "original research" I've done related to that is actually checking the copyright status of Orbit magazine issues after a public domain image someone else uploaded was deleted by some editor because he/she guessed it was probably protected by copyright instead of verifying its copyright status before acting. More accurately, checking citations and lack of citations for verifiabilty is the most "original research" I've done on Wikipedia. I have done some "original research" but not used it here and it would not be appropriate to discuss it on Wikipedia.


 * I see you are an administrator and hope this was an isolated incident. The deletionist movement made so obvious in the BLP controversy has been very discouraging to editors (or potential editors) and damaged the usefullness and credibility of Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia will recover and improve, not be damaged further. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable published sources? Really?  Your sources all appear to be library of congress copyright registrations and the like.  That is pure OR.  Also, please read the definition of "Vandalism" in wikipedia.  What I did cannot be construed as vandalism, which is purposefully disrupting Wikipedia without trying to improve it.  An edit made based on a disagreement about content can never be vandalism.  If you want this material in the article, you're going to need to cite a reliable secondary source that discusses it - newspaper or magazine articles, preferably.  If it's never been discussed in a newspaper or magazine article, it is OR, and should not be included here.  It also seems like complete undue weight, which is a POV issue - there is absolutely no way that half of an article about a major motion picture should deal with an obscure copyright dispute that doesn't appear to have ever been discussed in any mainstream media accounts of the film. john k (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ur a vandel, John K. Just admit it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.91.220 (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * john k "Reliable published sources? Really?" Yes, really. You should have read the publication history in citations you deleted 5 months ago. I think one you deleted is at . You can read a publishing history section in the Wikipedia article on the Catalog of Copyright entries. That article also has a section on the nature of CCE entries which are published indexes of registrations and documents prepared by government employees. The nature of entries was also in citations you deleted. No primary documents, no original research, just reliable secondary sources. "Your sources all appear..." really seems an acknowledgement you didn't check the sources so lacked an informed opinion before deleting. Indeed, I think one source you deleted was Variety magazine but editors should not be misled by incorrect statements you have made about sources. We are all uninformed about many subjects and that is expected but deleting information with proper citations simply because one is unfamiliar with it and uninclined to read the supplied information is not conforming to Wikipedia policy. "If it's never been discussed in a newspaper or magazine article, it is OR, and should not be included here." is utterly false and editors should consult Wikipedia rules, definitions and guidelines for accurate understanding of Wikipedia policy. Others can decide whether you were purposely or otherwise disruptive but I don't think you can point to any positive thing you have done to improve this article in the 5 months since your deletions. undue weight is an open question. This was a small article without any active editors at the time IIRC and it didn't take much additional material to become a large part of the article. Wouldn't it have been more productive for you to add new content regardless of whether you also deleted existing content? I don't recall that there was a copyright "dispute" although it could be disputed whether this is an adaptaption of the authentic "Adjustment Team" as a Copyright Catalog clearly shows the movie is legally and financially a derivative work based on a work of the same name claimed to have been first published a year later in a different magazine. That is a significant aspect of the story and movie which seems to be generally overlooked and should be addressed in a clearer manner than my previous attempt.   Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(out)There's a copyright dispute now. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/philip-k-dick-estate-files-suit. Remarkabley, the estate is suing despite the story being one of over 20 stories which entered the US public domain on January 1, 1983 because of failure to renew the copyrights with nonexistent works of the same titles having copyrights "renewed" in 1983 as works published in 1955. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an LAT article on the copyright dispute http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111127,0,770128.column --Nbauman (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Science fiction or fantasy?
Although this movie is derived from a story by Dick, there seem to be few if any elements that allow its categorization as science fiction. It relies on a metaphysical exploration of a possible higher power that has nothing to do with technology, science or an alternate reality based on our knowledge of our own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.133 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of both SciFi and Fantasy. You have the technology of the Black covered "Team", you have the fantasy and alternate reality of the substrate, the fiction of needing to wear hats and not being able to hear "Desicion trees'. The technology - today's in fact - of Decision Trees. And then there is The Plan books, kind of iPad-ish, folding, electronic booklets that are constantly showing the caseworkers up-to-the-minute decisions being made and about to be made. I don't think you can much more both Fantasy and SciFi than that - unless of course, in the director's cut, he reveals The Chairman. And then, if the Chairman lets loose some sort of particle beam, at least we'll know where we stand - if we are still allowed to stand.  In any case we'll "have him right where he wants us" (Admiral J.T.K.) Bands-of-neon (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Satanic interpretation?
I thought the caseworkers were demons and the Chairman was Satan for alot of the movie up until the ending. I mean the bureaucratic and threatening nature of these guys and their tendency to constantly interfere with people's free will reminded me alot of The Screwtape Letters. Hasn't anyone suggested this sort of negative interpretation? --Nerd42 (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not our place to say. If there are notable interpretations of it that way, we could include it, but unless that happens, it's just speculation.  Philip K Dick (who wrote the story this movie was based on) was quite interested in Gnosticism, which was often concerned with spiritual powers blinding and trapping humanity. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is our place "to say", as it is the Talk page.

SPOILER ALERT: I think if we look at the dialogue (we can't really use the book for dialogic evidence, as this article is about the movie), we hear from 'caseworker', "the chairman appears in many forms', I agree that statement is ambiguous. However, much mention of "according to plan", and "the plan"...they don't belabor the details of the plan (so if 'the devil is in the details' can be used as a point, this movie stays far away from details unless absolutely necessary - hence not much devil there) and how often do we hear the phrase "His Plan"; is this not always in film, lit, religion attributed to God. I have not heard the phrase attributed to the Devil - we may be familiar with the phrase "It's the Devil's work!". Well work isn't a plan, so to speak. Also, when listening to Terrence Stamp's (Thompson, The Hammer) speech, the devil is not even hinted at, instead he tells us that it is us who have caused our misery, that we have been given many chances in controlling our own destiny without any help. As far as interference from the angels, one could argue this to be 'the chairman's' wrath - just toned down a bit - after all it is The Hammer who causes the ankle injury, "it's just a sprain..."; could be worse? Maybe. But, THAT is what we don't see, the worst. Even the Taxi 'accident' doesn't kill anyone. Also, as far as the corporate structure is concerned, isn't that just another "form" of appearance? The trappings of "holding office"? Bands-of-neon (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no spoilers. As far as the talk page being our place "to say", we're here to discuss article improvements, not discuss the article subject. So, if no reliable source offers the above interpretation, we can happily disregard it. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia has no spoilers"? I think you got that the other way round.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. What I meant was, we no longer have any sort of a "spoiler" tag for articles. We certainly have spoilers in the abundant plot synopses in articles for films, books etc. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been "speculated" that the Chairman is God?
I know that someone is going to want to put that silly comment back, and I won't get into an edit war over it, but hear me out, because there's speculation and interpretation, and then there's just plain "hit us over the head with the concept until we realize it." The movie simply leaves no ambiguity at all over who the Chairman is. He's a being who writes plans for the entire universe, as well as every individual, and who has the ability to grant or take away free will. Who the heck do we think they're talking about? Is there any room for an alternate explanation? Saying that this is speculation is like saying people have "speculated" that Citizen Kane was referring to his sled. Minaker (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But we DO speculate that Citizen Kane was referring to his sled. How do we know that he wasn't referring to something higher, metaphorically?  Maybe it was a last-moment, semi-conscious stab at a childhood that he wished that he had had.  The "Chairman" is not necessarily God.  After all, an infallible God would not have to "Rewrite the Plan."  The film-maker left us all to answer our own questions.186.15.69.196 (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * God, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, the Great Pumpkin...no matter how you slice it it's WP:SYNTHESIS as they didn't state it explicitly in the film. Have any third-party sources talked about it? Doniago (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, because I don't see any relation at all between my argument and synthesis as Wikipedia defines it. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm not doing that at all. What multiple sources? I'm not saying "A and B, therefore C," I'm saying, A says this, so A is A. If A then A.  My argument that the concept of speculation does not apply has nothing to do with multiple sources, only common sense. Minaker (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, please understand that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm just asking for clarification. Thanks! Minaker (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's more original research in this instance. That was my bad. The point is, for Wikipedia purposes, as they didn't explicitly state that they're talking about God, we can't say, no matter how "obvious" we think it is, that they are. At minimum we need a third-party reliable source that says they are, but ideally we need information from someone related to the film that stating, "Yeah, they're talking about God". Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"I"?
Why is someone saying "I" in the reception section ? ("I suspect the filmmakers were...) Wikipedia is not meant for contributors to have opinions...
 * It's part of a quotation. Doniago (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry... The inverted commas are all the same instead of being smaller and bigger for beginning of sentences and quotes inside other quotes so I missed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.217.33 (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Much information about the movie lacking in this and most other wiki film pages
why is there way more information available for all films at any movie website, than on wikipedia?

this and all films are lacking much of the type of information below:

The Adjustment Bureau 2011PG-13106 minutes A congressman (Matt Damon) who's a rising star on the political scene finds himself entranced by a beautiful ballerina (Emily Blunt), but mysterious circumstances ensure that their love affair is predestined to be a non-starter. Screenwriter George Nolfi (The Bourne Ultimatum) makes his directorial debut with this romantic adaptation of Philip K. Dick's classic sci-fi short story "Adjustment Team."

Cast:Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, Terence Stamp, John Slattery, Michael Kelly, Anthony RuivivarDirector:George NolfiGenres:Romantic Movies, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Sci-Fi ThrillersThis movie is considered:Exciting, Romantic, Feel-good/Availability:DVD and Blu-ray.

--- each film should have the official synopsis(even if this particular official synopsis is extremely vague and written poorly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If the "official" synopsis is vague and poorly written, then there's no reason to include it. We're not an advertising platform for the movie companies.  There's also the issue of copyright. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What about the lawsuits?
This movie has been involved in at least three lawsuits about copyright and fraud. It's not neutral to ignore them and omissions can also be undue weight. Ask Tom Sawyer if whitewash is heavy. 199.250.57.231 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources have discussed them, you're welcome to be bold and add the appropriate information. Doniago (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
Surely there should be a reference to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2locp7EDAw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Asimov's End Of Eternity?
Does anyone know of a mention of the similarity to (or inspiration by?) Asimov's short story The End of Eternity? The page for the story has a link to this one, but I wonder if some critic mentioned it sometime in 2011/2012? Jimw338 (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Adjustment Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121016172603/http://www.cnbc.com/id/41476978/UNIVERSAL_PICTURES_PRESENTS_THE_WORLD_PREMIERE_OF_THE_ADJUSTMENT_BUREAU_AT_ZIEGFELD_THEATRE_IN_NEW_YORK_CITY_MONDAY_FEBRUARY_14_2011 to http://www.cnbc.com/id/41476978/UNIVERSAL_PICTURES_PRESENTS_THE_WORLD_PREMIERE_OF_THE_ADJUSTMENT_BUREAU_AT_ZIEGFELD_THEATRE_IN_NEW_YORK_CITY_MONDAY_FEBRUARY_14_2011

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Travel through doors
Is there a Wikipedia category for the sort of "travel" through doors used in this movie? Could we put that category on "The Adjustment Bureau" article and on the "There Are Doors" article and other articles that mention this sort of travel, analogous to the "category: time travel in fiction" category used for another kind of travel? --70.177.124.19 (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Teleportation in fiction? DonIago (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)