Talk:The Truman Show/Archive 1

Based on previous fiction
There was a 50's or 60's radio drama, possibly also a pulp short story, about a man who discovers that his entire town is infact populated by robots, including himself, and that they are used to test products and advertising, he discovers this in a secret tunnel and tv studio, the name could be "none of them knew they were robots",- this so needs to be included in the references other fiction section. If this work is listed and i missed it, apologies. Book M 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor Links
The links are too biased into the gnostic/christian point of view, instead of other issues of struggle of freedom or search for the ultimate truth that the movie covers.

Plot needs editing
The first five paragraphs of the plot section are a blow-by-blow account of the movie, up to the point where Truman starts realising something is wrong. The next three act as if the first five never existed, and give a quick summary of the entire plot.

I recommend deleting the first five paragraphs, since the first three do the same job better. Crimson Shadow 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems the plot has been given a bit of a work-over. Good job. Suppose you can disregard this now. Crimson Shadow 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the plot section have spoiler warnings? It covers pretty much the entirety of the movie. 203.171.97.136 02:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a new policy for spoilers per WP:SPOILERS where, in articles about fictional works, sections titled "Story" or "Plot" implicitly carry a spoiler warning. Putting spoilers in would thus be redundant. --Masem 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid.
This article is ridiculous, why only the gnostic/christian interprentantions when there can be a lot of multiple ones that is just as valid. A christian analysis is not the ONLY perspective on this movie. The interprentations of the actors roles too, is also very bad and singlehandly analyzed. They do not belong on this page, post more different interprentations or remove all.


 * If there are other interpretations, please feel free to add them. If not, then please enlighten me as to why the current interpretations should be deleted. And don't forget to sign your comments. Crimson Shadow 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In the special edition, it is actually revealed that Christof is being portrayed as, if not the Christian God, then at least having god-like powers, and sometimes almost acting as if he believes he IS God (within Seahaven). Harley Quinn hyenaholic 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that depending on your religious viewpoint, it may mean something completely different to YOU. As a Buddhist, to me The Truman Show represents our dreamlike state of unreality, one that we create by ourselves (or even created for us?) you can discuss this further, however the real intention will only be known once the writer of the story tells us what the intention of Christof actually was. God or God-like? Who really knows?--Read-write-services 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative ending
From the article, I read:


 * One alternative ending was less hopeful than the one that made it to release.

What happened in the "less hopeful ending"?

WpZurp 04:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I bought the DVD yesterday, but it wasn't on that (not on my version, anyway). I'll try having a bit of a look around on the Internet to see what I can find. - Vague | Rant 08:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * As it is, that sentence doesn't seem to flow either... should it be left as it is, rewritten, or (until more information can be found) simply removed on the basis that it lends nothing whatsoever to the article? Estel (talk) 12:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * You could say that about a lot of 1 or 2 sentence "paragraphs" in Wikipedia articles. &#9992; James C. 19:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well.. If you search "truman" on (URL removed, domain squatters)you get an "unspecified draft" and a "1998 draft", with quite different endings.Frencheigh 05:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, 3 messages concerning the alternative ending and none of them actually mention it.


 * Anyways, in the alternative ending Truman escapes his sound stage (in this script there's no giant dome, just discrete stage buildings) and confronts Christof personally on the roof. Truman snatches the envelope from Christof, and looking at the photo "a serenity comes over Truman."  The camera pulls back until Truman becomes a speck on the roof of a sound stage.  The next shot shows Marlon and a new wife with a baby, with the words "ZOE - Total Record of a Human Life" appearing on the screen.  Switching to real-life, the real-world Truman turns off the TV.  Truman, Sylvia and their daughter leave the house and approach the beach.  &#9992; James C. 19:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

what's in the envelope? Back ache 06:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed
I removed the sentences mentioning the alternative ending because they did not concern "interpretations" of the movie. They certainly did not conclude the section as the last sentences of a section should. &#9992; James C. 19:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Other

Hi, just watched the film and noticed that one of the callers to the phone in with Christoph idenifies themself (they actually hang up before they speak, or are stopped from speaking) as 'the hague'. Possibly a reference to Truman's 'inhumane' treatment at the hands of the corporation, 'The Hauge' being a place in the Netherlands where crimes against humanity are tried. Thought this could possibly be added to the 'other' section. --Hazy 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hazy, that's ridiculous. Sort your life out!


 * Dear anonymous editor. In future, please refrain from making such inane comments about other editors. And if you do feel that it is ridiculous, then please say why you think so. To be honest, I believe it is valid, and makes sense. Crimson Shadow 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wall of China
What's with the random "wall of China" statement under goofs? It seems very out of context, offering no correlation to the movie. --RcSamurai 17:00, 30 October 2005


 * It says in the film that the studio is one of the few man-made structures visible in space, along with the Great Wall. I agree that it needs clarifying though.  violet/riga (t) 23:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of Christof
The article sometimes says Christof and sometimes Christoff. I'm too lazy to find the true spelling! Pelago 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In the opening credits it is spelled "Cristof" Rusty2005 16:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Interpretation section
Isn't this section way too long? It seems as if someone has hijacked the article for a religious discourse, when this clearly isn't the place. I suggest the section is severely trimmed down, and links are provided to the supposed external analysis that is referred to here. 'Original research' is prohibited on Wikipedia, and I'd say conjecture on similarities between movies and Christianity come under that unless evidence can be found this is mere reporting of others' opinions. And if it can be found, I say we link it and leave it out of the article. Either that, or move it to a separate article, e.g. The Truman Show And God. Pipedreambomb 08:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Goofs" section: copyvio?
The "Goofs" section in this article appears to be mostly copy/pasted from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/goofs If this is the case, then it is a copyright violation. Does anybody disagree with this assessment? --Takeel 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Trivia" section also may have similar copyright violation issues based on this URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/trivia Again, does anybody disagree? --Takeel 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Trivia" section appeared to be salvageable, so I have attempted to resolve its copyright violation problems. --Takeel 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no disagreements have been mentioned here, I have removed the "Goofs" section because it is almost a complete copy-paste from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/goofs. --Takeel 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity / Original Research
I would question why on earth there are so many connections to Christianity on this page. It's not that I think they are impossible to make - but it mostly looks like original research. If it isn't, these interpretations of the movie should be referenced. mgekelly 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Your hostility to Christianity is noted. I question the section on the supposed inclusion of Gnostic themes, "There are elements of theology and ontology present in The Truman Show. Some believe it draws heavily on themes of Gnosticism," as it includes weasel words. "Some" out to be cited. However, I find no fault whatsoever with the principal author's explication of the Truman Show, as the themes he explores are worth some discussion. As for the author reading too much into the story, Rusty2005, I feel you are likely casting about in the opposite direction: reading anything else you can into the story, one that has blatant religious and philosophical themes, at least to someone with a modicum of education. If you wish to include an analysis of this movie that relates it to Christianity, here is one (extensive) source that you can work from to ensure that you do not stray into original research: I would be surprised if that were the only one. Uncle G 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was thinking. Looks like whoever wrote the Christian stuff has been reading far too deeply into the film and looking for religious connections that aren't there. Some of the religious "links" written about seem pretty tenuous. The only religious link I picked up on was Christof's booming voice at the end. Rusty2005 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of our opinions on the interpretations, they do constitute original research which shouldn't be on wikipedia.Loodog 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous editor, if what you say is obvious to someone with a modicum of education you should be able to provide cites to numerous authors who have written about it. Please provide them.
 * And in general, I think the 'Character Names' section is equally OR. It is filled with guesses as to why the screenwriter's gave the characters the names they did, but not a single cite. It needs to be sourced or removed. Ashmoo 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it civil people. Regardless of what was actually intended by the creators of the movie, ANY interpretation by you or me is original research.  Feel free to include any readings of the movie if cited from a published (or otherwise reputable) source.Loodog 18:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In keeping with the Be Bold! guidelines I've trimmed the Christianity sections. I've left in references which tie in to the film itself (no matter how tenuous) but have taken the liberty of chopping out bits which have an extremely weak link to the film, eg: the Bible quote about "night being my hiding place", or whatever it was. I really don't think that the stuff I've chopped was suitable for inclusion in this article. Rusty2005 13:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Garden of Eden is a common theme in Peter Weir's films. See Picnic at Hanging Rock, Mosquito Coast, Green Card, etc. I see no reason why there should be a Christianity section since this myth is shared by several different religions. Winick88 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
It says that Harry Shearer plays Michael Jackson. This is most likely false. 69.157.102.42 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I found it quite amusing when I read that... it's 'Mike Michaelson' according to IMdb. I'll go and change it now... RSieradzki 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he plays the host in TruTalk. You can hear Rev. Lovejoy's voice at one point in Harry Shearer's character.Loodog 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of Countries in the World
The article states: Although the introductory voiceover for "TruTalk" claims "220 countries tuned in for his first steps", most references only acknowledge there to be 192 countries in the entire world. This is not exactly an error, as List of countries names 243 entities that could be considered countries.

Is the 192 number referenced the number of countries that existed at the time Truman took his first steps, or the number of countries in existence now? For example, when Truman took his first steps, there were an East and West Germany, however, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were one country, as were the many countries which exist now which were once part of countries like Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc.


 * That's a possibility, but I think there's more countries today than during the Soviet era (what with the breakup of the USSR etc), so it's more likely that if Truman took his first steps in the Soviet era, there would have been less than 192 countries then, and certainly not 220 Rusty2005 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the film ever stage which era it takes place in anyway? Realistically, building a functional artificial city won't be possible for a while, but probably will in future.--MartinUK (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seahaven
Isn't the name of the town Seahaven, and not the name of the world? I'll be changing this, but please correct me if I'm wrong. --scienceman 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to be the name of both the town and the general area - the nuclear station is called "Seahaven Power Plant" even though it's some way out of town, and Mike Michaelson refers to "Seahaven, the world within a world". I doubt it really matters, it's just a name for what's in the dome. Rusty2005 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They call it "Seahaven Island" a lot, though I imagine the bridge led to 'mainland' i.e. near the dome edge and the 'power plant' is probably where they traffic everything in and out of the dome. NorrYtt 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly Posting
At around midnight on 31st July 2006 someone changed one of the 'Trivia' comments to read 'Truman killed Dumbledore', I have removed this. Could the poster of the comment about milliHelens please add it back (I do not wish to paraphrase you) and could someone with authority track and discipline the annoying poster of the Dumbledore comment. Thank you.

Formal Film Analysis on Wiki?
I have to say, this is an impressive article, if taking an angle to analyze a film like a work of art in a museum text. But is this really what is expected from an encyclopedia's perspective? I suggest that it at least be pared down & not be made the focus of the article. There is simply no substantial element to this movie that would require such thorough research... there is no book-to-movie adaptation question, no measurement of accuracy to a historic event, etc. Forgive me if this is too biased of me, but given the motivation & time, anyone could make an exhaustive analysis such as the one found in this article not just on The Truman Show, but on nearly any film. Experia 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed what I perceive as either original research or someone's point of view (e.g. overly emphasising that Cristof [sic] is utterly evil) + did some general cleanup. The "plot" section is still quite long, but as long as it's factual and neutral, I don't see what would be gained by removing text from it. (If readers are not interested in the plot, they can just skip that section.) --Zoz (t) 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I skimmed it again, you did exactly what I was thinking (if not suggesting clearly enough), thanks. Experia 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This film is analysed, and is studied in formal education systems (Video is currently listed on VCE), articles in this depth is helpful. --Fabiodrn 13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Source on: Totally Recorded hUMAN life
Totally Recorded hUMAN life, there is no cited link to view the draft notes of the truman show.

Characters Names
Title is a bit vague and broad. If we are to put the heading, 'Characters names' shouldn't there, then be all characters names with information? Not just characters with significant and meaningful names. --Fabiodrn 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This section seems to be original research. Unless some references can be provided, it should be removed. MaxVeers 10:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed entire section. If someone wants to provide sources, certain aspects of this section would make interesting reading, but as it stood it was simply original research and speculation. The trivia section is not much better... -- nae'blis 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Meryl as a nurse
"(who appears to work as a nurse)" Under the Paranoia title, it says, that Meryl "appears to work as a nurse", however Truman states at 39:18 in the film that, "I am looking for my wife Nurse Burbank, it's very important", which clearly shows that, Meryl is infact a nurse. Hence this statement which makes a leaves Meryl's occupation as inconclusive is false. On the basis of this, I have changed it. Fabiodrn 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

She appears to work as a nurse but is in reality an actress.


 * "Meryl" is a fictional character (actually a double-fictional character) who is a nurse. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Christof recast
On the new "Special Collector's Edition' DVD, the included-documentary has the director mentioning that a 'famous' 'successful' 'pretty good' actor playing Christof was scrapped because it wasn't working, to be replaced by Ed Harris. Anyone see any evidence of who this actor might have been? They're too polite to mention his name on the DVD.
 * It's Dennis Hopper, according to IMDb. MaxVeers 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Feelings of disgust
Hi,

I read the artice after watching the wonderful Trueman Show again. My question relates to the following statement "and in the case of his "wife", bury their real feelings of disgust."

I know to the end of their relationship his wife could no longer hide her feeling, however I'm not sure if it were disgust. Fear or the realisation that her role in this theatre was coming to an end. I can see no evidence that prior to this there had been any feelings of digust - indeed in the special features Laura Linney suggests that the backstory to that character was a money driven business woman.

I am of course open to being corrected and would not want to edit such a well constucted piece without some discussion on the subject.

195.144.135.189 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)dmc24601

Hmm... I think she shows disgust. When she's talking about how wonderful working on the show is she has the same fake smile that she uses to advertise stuff, and in the wedding photos she has her fingers crossed. But then that's y interpretation. Maybe just "bury their real feelings"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.74.12 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is all original research and therefore can't be included in the article.--Loodog (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A- it's still there B- that's why I suggested an alternative ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.117.90 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See Also/Box Office and Critical Reception
Two things to note here. There are quite a few local links in the see also section of this movie. I think that either they should be limited, a few should be seperated into "inspirations" and "in pop culture" etc sections. Also, there is little information in this article about the critical and commercial reception. The Modern Prometheus 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Short Story
I definately read this as part of a collected work of short science fiction stories -- I took it for granted everyone was familiar with the reference, until we were watching the DVD of The Truman Show and I thought to look it up on Wikipedia. I can't remember the name, author, or compilation (or I'd have just modified the main article). But I remember at least the ending of the plot, where a technition comes to "remove" the many cameras, and pulls "Truman" aside into a camera dead zone to say something like, "You know, if -I- had a successful, multi-million dollar show that depended on the lead actor not knowing what was going on, I might just -tell- him it was over, but not really end it." Getting the hint, "Truman" spends the last paragraph trying to entertain an audience who may or may not be watching. This is distinct from the Phillip K. Dick story as described in the article -- the short story reference I remember is more light hearted and does not involve protecting "Truman" from any kind of war or other turmoil. I would greatly appreciate someone with more researching skills identifying the reference. Kitesawa 04:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro
"It is an exposition on freedom, free will and the human desire to experience these states even at the sacrifice of security. The film chronicles the life of a man who does not know that his entire life is a constructed reality soap opera, televised 24-hours-a-day to millions across the globe."

This was originally one sentence, which I preferred:

"An exposition on freedom, free will and the human desire to experience these states even at the sacrifice of security, the film chronicles the life of a man who does not know that his entire life is a constructed reality soap opera, televised 24-hours-a-day to millions across the globe."

Though long sentences adversely affect readability, (which is why they're discouraged by any high school English teacher), it's a far worse offense to harm the coherent flow of a paragraph, especially if two related sentences abut each other, pretending to be oblivious to the other's presence. "It is an exposition on freedom, free will and the human desire to experience these states even at the sacrifice of security." takes a concise well-written sentence, amputates part of it and substitutes a dry stump for a leg.--Loodog 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review
Hello. I know this article has just been nominated for GA status, but I have a soft spot for this movie and would like to volunteer for a GA review before someone else snatches the article away from me. Since I am a little low on time at the moment, however, I'll do the review over the next seven days and leave my work-in-progress review below. If you want to fix the article while I am reviewing, this will save you time later.

The article already passes #3 (broad in its coeverage), #4 (neutral), #5 (stable), and #6 (image including Fairuse rationale) of WP:GA?. Reading over the production and release sections, the prose is quite good (haven't read them closely though yet), but I found some (minor) issues with the writing earlier in the article, which you will find below. (You may take the issues marked with a question mark as peer-review-y suggestions that will not influence the promotion to GA.) I will add more later on.

Intro: Plot: Characters: (to be expanded) – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The film chronicles the life..." contains the word "life" twice
 * "and Truman Burbank lived in New York City" - propose to change into "and set the story in New York" or something similar to prevent the switch from out-of-universe writing to in-universe writing
 * "and Paramount marketed the film similar to their approach on Forrest Gump." -> "and Paramount's marketing approach for the film was similar to Forrest Gump."
 * (?) "All but one of the participants are actors. Only the central character," - the current wording introduces some redundancy
 * The plot section contains plot and an analysis of the plot ("it criticizes greed", "He is an explorer" etc.) - either drop the analysis per WP:OR or find sources for these claims.
 * "it's all fake" -> "it is all fake"
 * (?) "inability to book any trips" -> "the inability to book any trips"
 * "a "leak at the plant"" - what does it mean, why are quotations used (i.e. it is not clear what this means to the reader who hasn't watched the movie)
 * "He's unaware that his daily life" -> "He is..."; the same for "isn't"
 * (?) "Weir laughed off the idea." - may sound a little colloquial
 * (?) "his father returns despite apparently drowning." -> "his father returns despite having apparently drowned."

Production: Soundtrack: General: (I'll do the rest of the article in my third and final review part.) – sgeureka t•c 09:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Niccol quoted," -> "To quote Niccol" or "Niccol stated" (because the current wording suggests that Niccol is quoting someone, not that wikipedia is quoting him)
 * "roughly above $1 million," - it can't be "roughly above" (either it is above or not). It can be "slighly above" though. Also, per WP:MOS, it should be a "&amp;nbsp;" between $1 and million.
 * "The script was purchased for roughly above $1 million,[7] in fall of 1993[8] by Scott Rudin" -> (1) If you leave this sentence like it is, there should be no comma. (2) Shortly state what Rudin's job is (e.g. American motion picture producer). (3) Consider rewriting this sentence into an active tense, i.e "Scott Rudin purchased the script ..."
 * (?) "the budget would be too expensive" - Can a budget be "expensive" or just "high"?
 * (?) "Weir brought down the original $80 million budget to $60 million." - is there a reason how and why? Also, I suggest the wording "Weir managed to lower..." or "was able to lower" because "brought down" may be a little colloquial
 * The paragraph starting with "Weir felt Niccol's script was took dark..." contains the word "felt" three times. You can create a little variety with "believed", "considered" etc.
 * (?) "...which he allowed the actors to contribute to." - a little awkward. I have no real ideas, but maybe try something like "and encouraged actors to contribute"
 * "Paramount was cautious about The Truman Show" - why (probably the price, but the wording doesn't make this clear)? I also think this sentence (and possibly the next sentene) would work better if moved to the end of the first Production paragraph
 * (?) "Sound stages at Universal Studios were reserved for Seahaven" - maybe repeat here that Seahaven is the setting of the story, e.g. "Sound stages at Universal Studios were reserved for the story's setting of Seahaven". I believe the comma right after this subsentence shouldn't be there
 * ""We took a lot from where characters..."" - state in-text who said this. I think it's also possible without too much effort to rewrite it not using any quotes like "The cinemotographers did this and this for these reasons blablabla", like the last sentence of the paragraph does quote nicely.
 * This section is currently a list-in-prose of loosely related facts. This problem can be solved by writing a short introduction like "The soundtrack of The Truman Show was published on Label XYZ on Date. Most songs were composed by Person ABC." Are you aware of any reviews or reviewers' comments about the soundtrack? Was there any discussion about how the soundtrack influenced the movie? (edit: The two last questions are more for expansion to bring this article to FA. If you can write one or two sentences for the questions, that would still be a bonus.)
 * Do a search again for "n't" (Ctrl+F) because of WP:MOS.

Themes: Release: The GA review is finished, and I'll put the article on hold. Please address the notes above within the next seven days; the article is on my watchlist and I will see the changes. You can also contact me on my talkpage. Thank you for your work so far. – sgeureka t•c 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Weir quoted...", see Production "Niccol quoted"
 * "In March 2000, Turner Broadcasting System purchased the rights, where the film can now often be seen on TBS." -> "In March 2000, Turner Broadcasting System purchased the rights and now often airs the film on TBS." (to avoid a change of the subject/focus in the sentence)
 * "Paramount marketed The Truman Show very similar to their approach on Forrest Gump." - see Intro
 * (?) "The Truman Show was a financial success since it recouped its $60 million budget four times.[19] The Truman Show was the eleventh-highest grossing film of 1998.[20]" - can be combined to "The Truman Show was the eleventh-highest grossing film of 1998,[20] recouping its $60 million budget four times.[19]" (that it is a financial success is therefore obvious and can be dropped)
 * "Based on 83 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes ... from the 30 reviews collected." - the two sentences contain the word "received" three times
 * (?) "In addition he compared Carrey's performance..." and "In addition the film was nominated" - I think there should be a comma after "in addition"
 * (?) A lot of people in the reception section "felt" something. Consider to add more variety like "said", "according to...", "commented", "regarded", "thought", "...saw in..."

Most of the changes are absolutely fine (good job on the Soundtrack section), but this introduced some new issues: This should take 10 minutes maximum for fixing. I'll promote then. – sgeureka t•c 08:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The film chronicles the life of a man" was changed to "The film chronicles a man" to remove the repeating of the word "life". But I don't think a man can be chronicled, just his life. If you can't come up with a solution, please go back to your original wording.
 * The sentence "Weir brought down the original $80 million budget to $60 million." seems to have been dropped completely, and the text jumps from a $80m dollar budget to $60m without any kind of explanation. (Also add &amp;nbsp; between the numbers and million per WP:MOS through out the whole text; I had only mentioned this for one example above.)
 * "a "leak at the plant"" - up until five minutes ago, I still thought this referred to peeing on flowers because of the used quotation marks. Make of that what you will. :-)


 * Promoted to GA. – sgeureka t•c 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

the truman show tenth anniversary
A tenth anniversary is an important staple for any project. Noting that for one day on the day should not be taken down, but allowed to be realized and saluted for all who visit the page on that special day. As long as it is removed immediatley following the strike of midnight there should be no qualms. Part of having an online and up to date encyclopedia is being able to insert and remove such factualties, once again as long as the notation is removed quickly and promptly following the strike of midnight. Mercury71 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Note 19 is misattributed to the online database that hosts the article. I am new and don't know how to edit the reference list, but the correct source is Journal of Communication Inquiry January 2000 vol. 24 no. 1 6-18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultcrit (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot Section
Hi, thanks for composing this. However, it seems the "Plot" section could use a little more vim, and achieve better insight. It's been awhile since I've seen the film, but I think there were about six or eight events that caused Truman to begin to doubt the reality of his surroundings. Also, it seems he was not driven to "escape", but by a yearning to know the real world. In that sense, the film is deeply symbolic of any and everyone's lives. Thanks again, BalancedScales (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the comparisons to Hamlet. They pretty much amount to, the main character is male, he has some friends, etc. The source seems to be some guys personal blog that is written at the skill and anlysis level of a high school student. Is this what Wiki basis its anlysis on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.47.137 (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, it sounds like some GCSE film studies student took to wikipedia trying to make ridiculous connections between the Truman Show and Shakespeare. I strongly suggest that somebody removes the entire "themes" section from this article, because most of it seems like utter rubbish. 86.180.51.6 (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the Hamlet section. Not only is it poorly written with shallow comparisons, if one looks back through the history it was apparently added by the person who's blog it sites as a reference and his source, other than it being obvious to him, is that his school children agreed with him. This hardly qualifies as a valid source.75.177.47.137 (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * my change was reverted without comment (I thought you weren't supposed to do that). So I will leave it to someone else to fix this.75.177.47.137 (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Hamlet section is just a long section of original research, and while yes, there are a few similarities, I could just as easily draw comparisons with The Matrix, as far as someone questioning the nature of his reality. Just because it's a comparison to Shakespeare does not give it any extra weight. I say it could be deleted entirely without anything being lost from the article. Unless anyone can give a good reason NOT to remove it I will delete it again in a few days. WesUGAdawg (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research here, and apropos nothing: Where the film picks up on the show, Day 10909, is this an indirect reference to The Beatles song One After 909, written early in their career, but only finally recorded/released on Let It Be? 61.69.243.141 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

correction??
In the plot, it says "Despite Truman's staged relationship with his wife Meryl, he desires to meet and perhaps court the scene-extra called Sylvia, who was removed from the cast by the producers while trying to explain to Truman the true nature of his life. In the thirteenth year of his life, Truman begins to realize that he is surrounded by an "unreal" world and tries to escape Seahaven."

Shouldn't it say? In the movie, it shows Truman at 10,610 days and counting, or some number around that. That is 29.8 years - Isn't that when Truman started realizing it? He is about 30 years old in the movie... not 13. Please verify. I am not sure if maybe at 13 years old he began to realize. I understood that he just always saw some peculiar things happening and during this movie (around 30 years of age) begins to unravel it all. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The scene was a flashback. He was in high school studying for a test in the library while Marlon was trying to get him to party.  Truman was not 30 in high school.--Loodog (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously not - but I don't see how that high school scene is related to the begin to realize sentence. Like I said, he always saw peculiar things, but it was only during the movie (when he was about 30) that he started to figure out something was amiss. So I don't think it should say 13th - that's not when he began to realize the unreal world. Maybe then the sentence needs to be changed - or the 13 needs to be changed to 30. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious Analogy section
Right now it seems like a bunch of random unrelated sentences, some of which have nothing to do with religion. 75.170.52.201 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like extremely careful satire.--PlatoCantRepent (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek
I just read a Newsweek article about how an increasing number of schizophrenics have been found to believe that they are part of a Truman-like reality show and everyone is in on it but them. They're calling it "Truman Show syndrome" or something like that. Thought it might be a good add. Wrad (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Found and incorporated. Alientraveller (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Real names
The list of characters names Natascha McElhone's persona as "Sylvia / Lauren Garland". But later the article states that "Truman and Sylvia are the only characters who use their real names on the show, which is to say their real names are also stage names." So which is it? Also, what is the relevance of making the latter observation under "Religous analogy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BroMonque (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy?
Why would this be considered fantasy? I'm changing the opening sentence to science fiction, unless anyone has a compelling reason not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.166.162 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it BACK to science fiction several times, and will continue to do so unless anyone can give better justification than "It doesn't have spaceships." It has a completely controlled reality broadcast 24/7 from a dome that can be seen from space. As This very website states: "Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. " This film IS science fiction. The only reason to claim otherwise is some manner of insecurity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.166.162 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would argue this movie is not science fiction because we have none of the elements traditionally associated with science fiction. If Christoff turned out to an alien, for example, this would be science fiction.  Or if The Truman Show turned out to be a simulation of the late 20th century designed by humans living in the 30th century.  Or if the stage of Truman's reality turned out to be in orbit around Jupiter.  These all push the imagination to a world expanded beyond present.  The Truman show is completely possible on today's technology and those of the past (they mention the technology to film the show evolving alongside the show itself) and involves no speculation other than "someone actually realized the idea".--Loodog (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great point. The genre can almost be ambiguous, but it's still definitely a comedy drama. Wildroot (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, those may be the elements traditionally associated with science fiction, but they're not needed. Think of 1984, or Fahrenheit 451. And is it really possible under today's technology? Can we control the weather over an area of that size? There is no way that stage could be built today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.166.162 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if something is possible under today's technology doesn't mean that it's not SF. For example, the story Space (novel) telling of a fictional Apollo 18 mission to the far side of the moon that was clearly possible under the technology of the Apollo program. Just one example out of many which could be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorillatheape (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * , 1984 takes place in the future (from the author's p-o-v) and has pretty futuristic technology for 1949 when it was written. I would regard it as sci-fi. Regarding The Truman Show, you ask if it would be possible to control the weather over such a large area. First of all, it wouldn't really be necessary. If it's raining where Truman is and he sees dark clouds in the distance, he would assume it's raining as far as he can see. Rain is staged for films all the time. Just look at the scene where Truman is on the beach and it starts raining. Due to some technical problem, it first starts raining directly overhead, and then all over the beach, or that what it's look like. That rain was obviously faked for the scene, and it looks like it's raining "everywhere". At water parks they have wave machines. Compared to what's usual, they might have needed to scale up the "weather technology" for the Truman studio, but it would at least be theoretically possible by 1998.


 * I have thought about The Truman Show having themes mostly associated with dark sci-fi-thrillers such as Dark CIty and even The Matrix, but without actually being a sci-fi film itself. Some might disagree, but I don't regard it as being part of the genre. It doesn't take place in the future and the technology would be possible when it was made. If some still disagree, I could accept the article mentioning it having some elements of sci-fi, but I don't think it should be listed as one of the main genres in the lead. "[A] 1998 American psychological science fiction satirical comedy-drama film" doesn't quite roll of the tongue. I think it's good that fantasy was removed. /Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 17:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In external links of this film not written,that this film is science fiction film. Bendybit (talk 10:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you did not actually bother to read the external links. The first of them is the Internet Movie Database, which lists the genres of the film as: "Comedy", "Drama", and "Sci-Fi". Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Marketing similar to Forrest Gump"
This comes up twice in the article, references to the movie being marketed in a similar fashion to another famous movie. However, nowhere here or in the Forrest Gump article is there any actual references to a marketing campaign, which means there's no way of establishing exactly what this marketing method actually was. Does anybody know? Is there any reference to this that can be used here or on the FG page? Otherwise it's cross-referencing that goes nowhere. Damage (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the cited newspaper publication. Bear in mind the Forrest Gump article is at B-class status, while The Truman Show is a certified Good Article, therefore I would likely trust this article better. It's also noteworthy that both film trailers for Gump and Truman showcase the same song from Randy Edelman's score for Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. Both films were also done by Paramount Pictures, thus the marketing strategies would probably be the same. That's my 2 cent rant. Wildroot (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chosen out of five/six unwanted babies
These two statements contradict each other: Plot: "Truman was chosen out of six unwanted babies to be a TV star..." Cast: "Truman Burbank: Chosen out of five unwanted pregnancies..." --User101010 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember it as 'ahead of five other unwanted babies', which would mean there were six.--MartinUK (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Drama-Comedy?
In which way was this movie anything even resembling a comedy? I saw it as drama all the way. If there was supposed be comedy in it, it was lost on me. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I remove it? I too didn't see any humor in this movie. In my eyes, it was drama to the max, which led me not wanting to watch it.--Shadow6Wolf66 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It definitely has more dramatic elements compared to Jim Carrey's other work. Director Peter Weir defined the film as a comedy-drama in the DVD special features because he believed the previous script, which was written more like a psychological thriller, was too dark. It's definitely a comedy-drama. Wildroot (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Any examples? I just don't see how this film could be funny, unless it is known for its dark humor.--Shadow6Wolf66 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The way the general public responds to The Truman Show can be considered at least somewhat satirical and funny, especially with the advent of reality television. I could go on and on. Basically, the first 2/3 of the movie are in the form of a comedy-drama, while the last third is tense (Truman escaping, primarily the scene with the sailboat). I'm too tired to continue on, but yes, there's a lot of morbid humor in the movie. Wildroot (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I think I get i now..Thanks for clarifying.--Shadow6Wolf66 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally do not see any way this is a comedy-drama or even a drama-comedy. Perhaps at a pinch it could be a drama/black comedy. 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.13.103 (talk)

It was far more drama than comedy.--Craigboy (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Based off a Twilight Zone episode?
This movie seems to be highly based (if not the story stolen completely) from a Twilight Zone episode in 1989 named Special Service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Service_(The_Twilight_Zone)

Reading all of the critical reception that the Truman Show was ahead of its time makes me :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.34.199.252 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a valid addition - why don't you add it? Not phrased quite as harshly as "stolen completely" perhaps, but nevertheless...  I note that the Special service link also mentions the Truman Show, so reciprocation would make sense.  -- a_man_alone (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a short notation of this in the Fictional Antecedants section. WesUGAdawg (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was based on "Time out of Joint" by Philip K. Dick. The plot similarities are patent and the bit with the radio a direct ripoff in almost every respect. It makes me :/ too. I'll be checking out the Twilight Zone episode mentioned above! 81.101.243.67 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There was another SF story, about 1956, about a man whose life was like a stage set - he accidently saw telephone poles being set in place as he walked down a street. anyone have that story name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.18 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The basic concept of the film (that the "real world" is, in effect, staged to fool one person) is a common enough form of paranoia and grandiose delusions. It is likely the ultimate source of this movie and all of the fictional references listed so far. Without a reliable source saying that this movie was "based on" anything, though, we have nothing to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The source for the claim about the twilight zone is behind a Wall Street journal paywall, and Andrew Nichols doesn’t seem to have ever supported it. Here’s an LA Times article where that addresses it and Niccols says Hollywood producers had no precedent for it. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/08/entertainment/ca-57718 2601:643:8102:7C36:1DD8:27BD:AED5:899C (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Fictional antecdents
I've restored the section "Fictional antecedents" that was deleted by Kollision. I note that it is extremely common for Wikipedia pages on movies and TV shows to include such sections, often without sourcing. Some examples: Bewitched; Alien; Jacob's Ladder etc. etc. This is not "original research"; anyone who has read the Knight story would immediately see the parallels. (Have you read it?) If you delete this section again, please add text on this page justifying why you are singling out The Truman Show for special treatment. Thanks, LyleHoward (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot Similarities
The film Pleasantville and The Truman Show to me have a lot of plot similarities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.30.7 (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's like a cross between Pleasantville, Westworld and Stepford Wives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.13.103 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Perennial Philosophy
The Truman Show strikes me as an allegory of the Perennial Philosophy, and similar to the currently popular neo-Advaita teaching of people like Eckhardt Tolle,or unAsleep.

In the basic mystical tradition, the world is seen to be fictitious, a 3D movie. True reality is outside that movie, and it is fear of the unknown that keeps us in. Various metaphors exist for that true reality - Now, Oneness, All That Is. But they refer to the same thing, which is said to be ungraspable by the mind. It can only be discovered, in the way Truman sailed to discover the doorway out.

--Jim (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please DO NOT Remove The Section The Truman Show!
The Section The Truman Show Is Very Useful To This Article. --S1312 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The content in the section you have been adding is trivial. While the content, I assume, is drawn from the movie and is likely correct, the content added (number of episodes, etc.) is not a meaningful addition to an understanding of the movie. As a general test for this type of material, check to see if any independent reliable sources have discussed the information. For example, consider the fictional character Lois Lane. While she is not the subject of the stories she is in (comic books, movies, etc.), she is discussed independent of those stories by reliable sources. The fictional "The Truman Show", however, is not (to my knowledge) discussed anywhere when not specifically discussing this movie. Yes, some information about the show is scattered throughout the article (as needed to understand various aspects of the film). A seperate section, however, is not needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It might seem useful, but all it really is is duplication of info that's already present in the main article. Just stating that it's "useful to this article" is not a reason to keep - why is it useful to the article? Convince us.   a_man_alone (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Harry Shearer banned from premiere show.
There is an interview with Harry Shearer in which he states that Scott Rudin the Executive Producer of The Truman Show banned him from the film's premiere in Hollywood because of a magazine article that Shearer wrote for in which he stated that he never worked with Jim Carrey during the production of the Truman Show only Ed Harris and Laura Linney and apparently the magazine blew this fact out of proportion in the headline which apparently upset Rudin to the point that he threaten Shearer that if he showed up at the premiere he would shut it completely down. What I'd like to know is this too trivial to be included as part of the article? I'd thought I asked first before actually making any edits. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot changes
A determined IP-hopping editor has repeatedly reverted to a rewrite of the plot, but has never offered an explanation for these changes. The matter should be discussed here, and a consensus reached, before any further changes are made to the plot. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  03:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Truman Show is similar to...
An episode from the show called "Eerie Indiana", the episode name is called "Reality Takes a Holiday" (Episode #18). The description of this episode is as follows: In this self-referential episode, Marshall finds a television script in the mail and suddenly finds himself behind the scenes of Eerie, Indiana where his friends and family are the actors and actresses on the show and everyone refers to him as Omri Katz. Link: Eerie Indiana Episodes List --U8iuui11 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

a comment
"Every time she sleeps with Truman she gets an extra $10.000." there are more significant purposes for that amount of money to had gone instead of just sleeping damn it!

"....developing a more mature...." unfortunately nowadays the putrescence is considered "maturity"!

"....leaving his child-self behind...." if everyone could remain a child the planet would have been as a paradise

"....and becoming a True-man." didn't seem to become so "true" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8440:BE00:3C3B:5EA:2AFB:2AC8 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There's something fishy about reference 7 (this is an understatement)
Hey. Seven times throughout the article, reference 7 is referenced. However, the article by Svetkey it links to, does not include any of the information stated. What's up with this? I've done Google searches, to see if I could find the referenced information elsewhere... and I could not. What's going on? Is this made-up information, or did a source disappear? 607 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. Thanks for catching that.  At some point in the article history, the ref must've been switched around.  I'll see if I can't track it down. -- The Old Jacobite The '45 03:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Continuity error
The Truman Show is a "1998" American psychological science fiction comedy-drama film. The Truman Show was originally a spec script by Niccol, inspired by a "1989" episode of The Twilight Zone

How can a film released in 1998 be inspired by an episode of The Twilight Zone that first aired in 1999 (specifically, according to Google, on April 8, 1989)? On Special Service's Wikipedia Page, it says that some people think that that episode was inspired by The Truman Show, not the opposite. So, is this just that the article the person used as source for that information ("Films Inspired by Rod Serling's 'The Twilight Zone' | Snapshot - WSJ") is wrong or am I missing something? Davidxu160801 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? The episode of The Twilight Zone was released in 1989, and The Truman Show was released in 1998. I don't see how that's confusing.  — dylx (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * David, Nineteen eighty-nine, not nineteen ninety-nine. /Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 16:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)