Talk:Babylon A.D.

Reception

This got a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/babylon_ad/) Facebookery (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on until the movie is released to the public. Five reviews hardly counts for anything. nneonneo ^talk 00:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Name

Not sure why it was the first one I found, but here's a newspaper using the name http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/leisure/cinema/3629338.Babylon_AD/ There was also a link to the Barnes and Noble Babylon Babies entry. (both in the top 10 of a google search)Westrim (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Babylon Babies is not Babylon AD. That a character may be called one thing in the original source does not mean that he has the same name in the film. There is nothing in the film which refers to him by that name. I will re-delete until such time as a reliable in-film source provides the name. Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's just the source material, why would we pay attention to it. He's still the same character, just in a different medium, and thus has the same name, even if no one says it in full- or even if they don't say the name at all, like the Harry Potter series. Check any other book-to-movie conversion. If his last name is the same it follows that his first name is too. Find me a wiki guideline that supports you, or find somewhere that he has a different first name, and I'll reconsider my position.Westrim (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, why should we pay attention to it? Is the film word for word the same as the source? I've fact-tagged the name. Provide a reliable source from the film, if you remove the fact tag without the reliable source, it's vandalism. What guidelines am I following? How about WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYN?

Names change from book to movie all the time, by the way. Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure you knew that and chose to deliberately misinterpret me. If you can find any indication that his name has actually changed, and isn't just in short form, please show it. I gave you a source, one for the movie, right there in my first post, so I'll go ahead and remove your tag- I would provide a primary source, but I haven't seen it in a theater. And don't be silly, no movie is exactly the same as the book, but they almost always keep characters names the same, and in fact, they did here as well (not changing them all the time- I can't think of any occurrence like that where they didn't change the character drastically as well). Your citations don't apply: I have sources (the book and link), I'm not doing OR, and I verified it. To repeat, that they only say his name in short form is no indication that the rest of his name somehow vanished into thin air. Westrim (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing a fact tag without providing a reliable source is vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing a source was provided, then. Westrim (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Corvus, let's cool it with the "vandalism" talk. Everyone here is obviously trying to improve the encyclopedia, you just have a difference of opinion. If you'd like a free WP:3O, the reference (and rationale) supplied by Westrim seems reasonable to me, especially considering the level of importance the character's name has in the grand scheme of things. If this is a big enough deal, there are other things to try. No need to edit war over a fact tag. --barneca (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you do when you know that a source is wrong? Corvus cornix_talk 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess, you provide a reliable source showing that it's wrong. No, really, I'm not being snide; if you think his source is wrong, you must have a reason for it. Bring it up here. --barneca (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The source he is using is referencing the name of the character from the original source, the novel that the movie is based on. Nowhere in the movie is the name he's claiming referenced. He is only called "Toorop", never "Hugo Cornelius Toorop". I can't reference a negative, I can only keep asking for where in the movie he is ever referred to as Hugo Cornelius, but he refuses to answer. Corvus cornix_talk 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are 2 or 3 issues going on.

1. The V word. To me, this is the most important, and why I got involved, though it has the least to do with this article. I'm only guessing, and perhaps my timeline is off, but this might be why Westrim isn't feeling compelled to reply to you any more; telling someone who (by a quick check of their contribs) is a good faith contributor that they're vandalizing is pretty much guaranteed to poison any future discussion. Vandalism is "intentional damage" to the encyclopedia; this ain't that.
2. Movie or book. The way the newspaper article is worded, it seems clear they're talking of the movie. Corvus, it is quite possible you're right, and the author of the article just assumed the name was the same. I haven't seen the movie, I have no idea if the name is ever mentioned. But if all you're basing it on is your watching the movie yourself, isn't that WP:OR? Don't we tell editors all the time, WP is about WP:RS not WP:TRUTH? It applies to real things too, not just freaky fringe theories.
3. Conflict resolution (real world method): Westrim's post of 22:40 seems reasonable to me, he's got a source that seems to back him up, and if I were you Corvus, even if I was sure I was right, I'd just drop it, filed under "choose your battles". Indeed, if I were Westrim, I'd drop it and let you have your way, filed under the same heading.
4. Conflict resolution (Wikipedia method): ask for more opinions here by going to WP:FILM and asking for more eyeballs. Or WP:3O (it would technically be 4O, but no one's going to complain I don't think). Or just wait for a bit; an article about a new movie is bound to have others visit the talk page soon enough.

--barneca (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine I've already been told that Plots don't have to follow WP:V, now requests for sources don't need to be followed. Great. Wikipedia is going into the toilet. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well first, thank you for intervening Barneca. I was busy in the real world, so that's the reason I'm just now coming back here. I won't say anything else as this is apparently resolved. Bye, then.Westrim (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add, I saw the film and in the closing credits they have the character's full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.74.84 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Full name was there. I wonder how "Mr Throw-My-Toys-Out-Of-Pram" feels now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.16.31 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have retitled "Critical reception" to "Insider and public reception"

There was no critical reception information in the section... only insider and public. I don't think that is a Bad Thing... but the name for the section seemed very wrong.

I added IMDB stats. I also added a date, as the numbers will shift.

sinneed (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan Toorop

Is the movie or perhaps the book influenced by subjects in Jan Toorop's paintings. For example, in Babylon Babies, the woman Toorop was escorting was named Marie, but in the movie, her name was Aurora. Is this a reference to Jan Toorop's painting "Aurore", which pictures the mythical godess of the dawn accompanied by an armored knight who stands atop a vanquished beast of darkness? I'm just curious if anyone knows something about this.--68.242.167.9 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Polarized.

An example of "heavily polarized" would be... the 2 largest blocks of votes being 1 (awful) and 10 (excellent). Should I add a citation for the definition of polarized? That seems excessive. sinneed (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, objection to "heavily" seems not inappropriate. I killed it. sinneed (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just stick to the facts instead of adding your own interpretation? 6/10 ratings are a mere .4% behind 0/10. Is that even polarized? Stick to what's actually verifiable, and that is the two largest blocks of voters are either for 0/10 or 10/10. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed user ratings per MOS:FILM#Critical reception. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the rest of the user ratings upon studying Erik's citation. Thank you, Erik.

Pwnage8 - I stuck to the facts. But thank you for your concern. Please see again the definition of "polarized". In any event, the point is moot, as user ratings are not allowed, as I read the Wiki guidance document Eric kindly provided.sinneed (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The reviews you removed are by professional film critics, not users. I'm reverting your change, and if you revert back, it will be considered vandalism. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool down, Pwnage. As noted in a previous section, calling someone clearly trying to improve the article a potential vandal is NOT conducive to a good editing environment. Even aside from that, your conduct has been very abrasive, and I commend Sinneed for ignoring it. Westrim (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me to cool down? You don't even know if I heated up! All I'm doing is looking out for the page by making it as neutral as possible and preventing disruption. Giving out a warning does not mean I assume anything about the editor. We don't want 3RR violations here.. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the wording you use. You may be trying to make the page neutral, but you aren't being neutral in your comments on other editors at all. An editor attempting to improve the article is not a disruption, and their mistakes are opportunities for teaching, not criticism. When you say "if you remove this segment, its vandalism", how is that not confrontational? Since he did remove it (with appropriate justification given in the next section of this page), then by the terms of that statement you now consider him a vandal. Westrim (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're grasping at straws. I clearly stated that the next revert would be considered vandalism, after I gave him an explanation. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What straw? It's inappropriate and unwarranted to say that any edit to a specific section by a specific editor is automatically vandalism, regardless of their reasoning. Westrim (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe if the edit is vandalism. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Which it wasn't. You two may have different opinions, but his reasoning in the next section is sound. Westrim (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at his user talk page. I'll finish reading your discussion there later, but considering that an administrator just granted him the use of a tool specifically used for fighting vandals, your justification for accusing him of vandalism drops to below nil. Westrim (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I explained it to him on his talk page already. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, show me where I accused him of being a vandal. Boy, this will be good. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You told him that if he reverted it again you would consider him a vandal. He did revert it, so by your declaration he was vandalizing. EDIT: Rechecked the timing on the edits flying around I now see that you were referring to your revert at 18:19, not Erik's at 17:37. Sorry for the confusion: however, it is still appropriate to tell a registered editor with no record of vandalism, who you can see was just granted powers to fight vandalism, that any reversion of a section will be considered vandalism. Yes, there's the 3R rule, but you would also have been one step from violating it if Erik didn't intercede and do one of them before you; that and you made no mention of it in your "warning" to Sinneed. Westrim (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How could you think I was talking about Erik's edit? I reverted to his revision. This discussion is over. I want a real apology on my talk page for all the time of mine you wasted by being so careless. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. First, look at my first post in this thread; all of that still applies, you still threatened to call him a vandal, and your conduct has still been not very abrasive. I'm not sure where between that and my next post I got the timing screwed up, but I did- and I have apologized for that. Why should we take this to your talk page? Looking at it, it's already a monument to your rudeness, so I don't see why I need to add yet another example (like, say, declaring a discussion to be over and archiving it without regard to any other ideas on the matter.) Archiving is for old discussions (or ones to be kept as evidence of some violation), not ones you don't want to pursue any further. As for your time, it was yours to waste, not mine; I didn't force you to write any of your responses. Westrim (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a monument to your stupidity. I have never seen anyone screw up so badly on a talk page. And yes, removing professional reviews is vandalism. Funny how you say I'm being rude and you're not. I find it rude that you would jump into a discussion when you don't know what you're talking about and then make claims about how I supposedly am and what I supposedly did. I consider your behaviour rude. And don't tell me that you didn't waste your time either. Most of this debate you had no idea what was being talked about and then you try to act like that never happened. You basically argued with me for no reason. That's called wasting time. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Making a mistake isn't stupid, and I misjudged the timing of everyone's edits, that's all; if that's so bad to you, then you need to get out more. At the time you made your ultimatum, there were questions as to whether they were all professional reviews- and aside from that, making out a long standing editor to be a potential vandal is very rude indeed. I was responding in kind to your rudeness in my responses- I'm afraid I can't wave everything off as humorous like Silheed can. This is Wikipedia; there aren't any rules on entering a conversation in a public forum. Why don't you go nag Erik too- he was "interfering" as well by that standard. As for my time, that's mine to waste, and I find defending people from jerks to be satisfying. And yet again, everything I said in my first post still applies. My mistake, which I've owned up to ever since I realized it (how exactly am I acting like it never happened?), does not change it. Westrim (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's never any question whether Metacritic compiles professional reviews. They obviously do, and whoever would remove them because they are "user reviews" is either a troll or a serious noob who has never looked at movie articles. If you made such a costly mistake, you need to be on Wikipedia more, not throw personal attacks at me. You don't know me, so you can't tell me what I need to do. Warning someone that their edits will be considered vandalism is not rude. It's actually commonplace on Wikipedia. Erik's edits were not disruptive in any way, so I will not follow through on your request to 'nag' him. Although, that seems like something you would love to do. Whatever gave you the idea that I'm a jerk? Be honest... I know you're in the wrong. You have been before. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was question, which Erik cleared up and you ignored in favor of belittlement. The dismissive attitude that you display in your second sentence is a clear example of your narrow-mindedness, assuming that one must either be looking for trouble or completely unfamiliar with the subject to disagree with you. I don't see how my misunderstanding the timing was costly. It happened once to me that someone misunderstood the timing, but they realized it by there next post because I made it clear which post we were speaking about. It was a only a mistake ( and one made by someone who had been editing for two years), so I was quite content to let it go, unlike you; this is the third time you've brought it up. You complain that I am in no position to say what you should do because I don't know you- yet in the previous sentence you told me I need to be on Wikipedia more, despite your not knowing me either. And I know all I need to know about you from the many entries on your talk page. By the way, warning someone that they may be considered a vandal is usually done to people who are... vandalizing (or pressing a point after it was refuted, which it had not been when you said that). Which he was not, just mistaken. You're misunderstanding my statement on Erik; it was in reference to your statement that somehow that you and Sinheed were the original debaters should make you the only debaters. Your actions, both on this topic and the ones recorded on your user talk page, give me the idea that you are a jerk. And yes, I have been wrong before. However, unlike you, I admit it and move on. It's clear from your actions past and present that you will not ever reconsider your attitude, so feel free to respond, but I will not. Bye. Westrim (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no question whether Metacritic should be included or not. And Sinneed was not disagreeing with me, he was disagreeing with Wikipedia gudelines. Straight up. Defending him for doing so does not help one bit. I'm glad you finally quit arguing with me. You already lost a long time ago by being a complete dumbass. It's funny how you're saying I'm a jerk, yet in my one and a half years on Wikipedia, this is the first time someone has said that to me. I keep everything on my talk page, and I hide nothing. But you obviously ignored the more prevalent positive messages that are there to paint a distorted picture of me. That can be done to anyone. You blank all the warnings you get on your talk page. Hmm... that says a lot. If you're not capable of debating something, then you shouldn't be in the debate, period. So then, yes, Sinneed and I should have been the only debaters. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the there was question; the answer may have been so obvious to you as to not require a reply, but Sinneed didn't until Erik explained it (in the Babylon A.D. segment of his talk page). He also didn't know the guidelines he was shown them, so his disagreement was with you until then (and when he was shown the relevant guidelines he quickly read them and and executed them, which lead to the Metacritic/Rotten Tomato disagreement). I'm not sure how making a mistake that I own up to after realizing it makes me a dumbass. I said you were being a jerk because you were- unless saying "a monument to your stupidity" or "Stick to what's actually verifiable," is generally considered to be polite. I looked at the complaints that resembled mine, and the associated edit histories backed them up. And it's easy to get good messages on your talk page if you edit widely enough- even an editor I encountered that had five blocks to their name still had many positive things said about them. And as for my talk page- The "warnings" I blanked were... let's see. One from a sock puppet that was banned less than an hour later, one that took exception to my deleting their unsigned post that look for all the world like a troll, and five that accused me of vandalism for deleting an inaccurate sentence that turned out to be a part of a reference(four from one editor who quickly resorted to swearing and only belatedly mentioned that it was part of a reference, and one who followed her lead without fact checking). Westrim (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought this debate was over already. I just don't care anymore. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was, but after I saw what you called me and what you insinuated about me, I couldn't leave it unanswered. Westrim (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well. I was pissed at the time, and you said you would leave so I guess I went all the way with my last comment :D But yeah, that's cool to be defending yourself and whatnot. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I can understand that. Lets try not to let this old disagreement color our current one, okay? Westrim (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't on my mind at all. I might just go through that paragraph tomorrow and trim it down. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomatometer & Metacritic

Please review the Tomatometer criteria at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics.php. While this is an excellent way for both amateur and professional reviews can be screened for competence... they remain user reviews as I see it. I would defer to, for example, Erik or some other knowledgeable editor of course. One need only be a member of a wide range of accredited critical organizations, rather than a professional. I am removing the RT user rating now. I will investigate the other rating further. sinneed (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For Metacritic, I note that if the reviewer does not assign a rating, the Metacritic staff assign the review one based on the Metacritic staff "overall impression" http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml of the numeric value of the review. Here again, I would defer to someone familiar with the Wiki guidance documents. Are the staff at Metacritic considered a reliable source for these numbers? sinneed (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I realize this movie was next to impossible to follow, but I'm sure someone out there remembers the plot. I really want to know what the movie was about, because I honestly didn't understand it. Paskari (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

me to. the movie lost me at the end. sept 9 2008 11:43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what really confused me, it was those clone tigers...and how she could talk to them. Is she a clone? was that crazy boxer guy a clone? Why was she so sensitive to other people's suffering? What the hell was with the twins? Why did she die in labour? Paskari (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss these things, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. However, I will say that; she didn't talk to the tigers, just stared at them. Also, it could be that since she was designed by a computer, that the pregnancy was timed, and that the kind of kids she would have would be controlled as well. It's a film that forces you to think. Either that, or all the loose ends will be tied up in a sequel. If you still have questions, please seek answers elsewhere, because this isn't the place. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a discussion forum, so we shouldn't talk about how we fealt about the movie, but everything we just talked about should be adressed in the plot/premise section. I do this all the time in the science articles. I discuss things I don't understand, because, more likely than not, my complaints represent the complaints of the majority of the people out there, therefore, they should be addressed. In any case, how should we go about updating the plot section? Is there anywhere we can get some information on this movie? Paskari (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The woman was genetically engineered, and preprogrammed to have twins, etc. Is that the same as "host to an organism", as the description goes??124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pwnage8, I agree that the segment is too long; I added the tag, after all, and watched in bemusement as the editor that put it there worked. However, keep perspective and realize that most people coming to the page won't know it exists if it isn't there, and I'd much rather have a summary that's too long than nothing at all, not even a heading to show that something should be there. Again, it can't be worked on if it isn't seen. Westrim (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph moved to talk page

*I've posted the paragraph here so that it can be worked on without affecting the readability. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Readability? Uh...say again? Did you miss what you just posted? 58.170.133.245 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

He means so that people can see it instead of dredging throught the history to know it even exists. Read the conversation preceding it Westrim (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I wanted people to be able to work on the plot paragraph to come up with a much shorter version, without a big block of text cluttering up the article. Since we have that now, I've deleted the paragraph. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Shorter version of plot

I have written a shorter version of the plot. It was deleted, if this is not explained I will restore it.--Patrick (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoorop?

The end credits and imdb both list his name as Toorop. Where's this Th come from? 83.145.207.156 (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Zsinj^Talk 07:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ending

The purpose of this post is for the improvement of the article. I think the explanation of the end is incorrect. I've watched the movie from beginning to the end (to the end of the credits) and I saw nothing about the twins, their development, and Toorop's mention of a coming storm. The movie ends with the death of Aurora and nothing else. There is nothing further. Even IF there is an alternate/additional ending/explanation, if it is not a part of the film as it is presented, it cannot be defined as canon and therefore should not be included in the plot.

I have removed the last sentences, and I recommend that it stay removed until there is a clear answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.98.204 (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this movie broadcast on TV and the last scene was Toorop at his rebuilt log cabin, the twins playing outside. Toorop walks over to the twins and says "A storm is coming" and takes the kids inside. This scene is after Aurora dies. Kegon (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Babylon A.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/international/features/e3i7bd8c0c023888c2f598deb1cb8194586?imw=Y
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916041243/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com:80/news/press_releases/shavo_scores_first_feature_film.html?200712140433 to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/press_releases/shavo_scores_first_feature_film.html?200712140433

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)