Talk:Gattaca

Biopunk?

The source cited in the lede does not support the claim that this is a biopunk film. In fact, the whole point of biopunk is that people should control their own genetic and biological destiny, which is the exact opposite of the eugenic vision of this film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s right there in the cited article. And if you don’t like that one, do a Web search, where innumerable articles designate it as biopunk. Your opinion on the meaning of biopunk is not accurate and not relevant. Strebe (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not in the cited article. There is one parenthetical use of the word biopunk, which is not helpful. And it is not my opinion, it is the canonical definition of the genre. Where is the biopunk in this film? Where is the substantive citation that indicates how this is relevant? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Then go invalidate the biopunk article, which cites themes that show up in Gattaca, in contradiction to your personal, uncited, unsupported, counter-to-etymology belief about its meaning. And why you’re burdening me with having to hunt down and copy and paste references that you yourself could just find and glance at yourself, I cannot say, but I don’t appreciate it.

• List of biopunk works#Films and television with three references;
• [1] Calls Gattaca a “pioneer” in the genre.
• [2] Essay from Inhabitable Infrastructures: Science Fiction or Urban Future?.

Strebe (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed 'plot/synopsis'

My added Plot got reverted without any mentioned reason. Said edits are as follows Director Josef push Irene and Jerome to end the investigation immediately so as not to delay the launch further. When taking Irene on a dinner, Vincent learns the identity of the detective who closed the case, his brother Anton, who in turn has become aware of Vincent's presence. If they were removed for being to much, I would say so for a 106 minutes movie to have 6 long paragraphs as as a plot. For my second synopsis this is an important development for the plot which would lead to climax. If it got removed for being "spoiler/twist", then so is the follwing sentence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyoroemon2 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was wrong. Director Josef does not push Irene and Jerome to end the investigation. Irene and Jerome are not the ones investigating and they do not control the investigation.Strebe (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

On the NASA list

Per The Guardian the supposed meeting at the JPL never happened, so including mention of this NASA list is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Even The Smithsonian re-reported the original list and its attribution. Sad. Strebe (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in the middle of posting a question on another board about pre-ponderance of RSes vs one blog post, but then I saw the Gaurdians' statement which cinched it for me. --Masem (t) 18:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Since it's recently been re-added and re-deleted, my two cents: it should stay out. It does not matter whether the meeting (reported at [3] happened or not. The claim in the sentence is "It was voted by NASA as one of the most plausible science fiction movies ever created." Let's assume the Smithsonian account to be accurate, and completely disregard the Guardian account (I'm not saying we should, I'm just assuming the best-case for inclusion to avoid strawman). From the Smithsonian description, it was an ad-hoc vote by a number of scientists (no mention of whether they were NASA scientists or not) attending a conference at JPL (which is a joint project between NASA and CalTech, not a part of NASA itself). First, it's not "voted by NASA"; there's no indication that the voters were all from NASA, or that the vote was offered to all of NASA. Second, the report is on which films were "best" and "worst", not which were most or least "plausible". Presumably, with scientists making the call, plausibility would be a significant factor, but that's not what was reported. Finally, it appears to have been just a bit of entertainment for those attending the conference; not authoritative or statistically significant in any way. Seems silly to have in the article. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Theatrical release poster replacement

@QuestFour:Why was this edit made? What is the difference? Strebe (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The file's name; the previous name suggests that the poster is an alternative one, which it isn't. QuestFour (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shuyu1234567 (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shuyu1234567 (article contribs).

Drama?

In this edit, User: Dimadick states, Reverted. The lead does not mention drama at all, and this seems like OR. It suffices to refer to any of many WP:RELIABLE source to discover that Gattaca is also a drama (as well as a romance). Drama is not mutually exclusive to thriller (indeed, it’s part of a different system of classification). The claim that the movie is not a drama is an unsupported opinion by someone who does not seem to have looked at any evidence. The fact that the lead does not mention drama is an omission, not evidence. Strebe (talk)

Really? The lead does not mention drama, and you did not just add drama to "thriller". You simply removed the thriller categories. Dimadick (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Genre again

So discussion on the films genre has come up again, I would like to refer to WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states that "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." and per MOS:FILMGENRE which states "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." In short, we should apply only the genres that are reflected in sources. I'll go through some reviews here and come up with what the general organization. I'll try to be unbiased with this, and not just google search "Gattaca drama" or "Gattaca space opera" or something to hunt and find sources.

• New York Times: "Gattaca is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It includes clinical scientific detail, one brief sexual situation and some violence in its final moments. Older children with a taste for science fiction should find it intriguing." source
• Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times: "This is one of the smartest and most provocative of science fiction films, a thriller with ideas"
• Hollywood Reporter: "n Oct. 24, 1997, Columbia Pictures unveiled Andrew Niccol’s sci-fi thriller Gattaca, starring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, in theaters. The Hollywood Reporter’s original review is below....Gattaca is an intelligently-conceived sci-fi chiller starring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman. source
• Empire: "Sci-fi written and directed by first time helmer Andrew Niccol, a vision of the 21st century when genetic engineering is the accepted norm to produce perfect people" source
• Variety: "Andrew Niccol's impressive feature debut, is an intelligent and timely sci-fi thriller that, with the exception of some illogical plot contrivances, is emotionally engaging almost up to the end." source
• Entertainment Weekly: "That's not a coincidence. Gattaca's mournful pace puts it squarely in the tradition of Big Think sci-fi, especially films like George Lucas’ THX 1138, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, and Jean-Luc Godard’s Alphaville (as Hawke’s love interest, Uma Thurman exudes some of the luminous sadness of Anna Karina)." source
• IGN "...Gattaca marks Niccol's directorial debut. His translation from page to screen of such an ambitious sci-fi mystery showed the world that he had what it took." source
• Time Out ". Self-consciously at a remove from the trashy B-movie sensibilities which have dominated science-fantasy movies in recent times, this harks back to the vacuum-packed, classically alienated dystopia of Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451. Chilly, elegant, and a little bloodless." source
• CNN "It's not very often that you see a real honest-to-God science fiction film."source
• Los Angeles Times: "Niccol’s script, which has the earnest simplicity of a freshman philosophy paper, is merely naked exploitation, a sci-fi snow job that projects a contemporary ethical question--would a perfect human be human?--into a solemn future where the worst-case scenario unfolds as conventional Hollywood melodrama." source
• Austin Chronicle "For all its genre-hopping (science fiction, mystery, love story, socio-political exploration), Gattaca never gets away from itself; it's firmly rooted in Hawke's masterful humanity, making this less a sci-fi epic than a simple (and simply wonderful) lesson in humanity and the direction in which one hopes it's not heading." source
• SF Gate " In that moment "Gattaca" has the science-fiction chill that audiences want and expect.

That chill is largely absent from the rest of "Gattaca," and so is another science-fiction kick"source

• USA Today "...if smart sci-fi is your vial of tea, Gattaca won't disappoint." source

So from the above (and we can find more, but I think this is plenty), I primarily see science fiction and occasionally it says Science fiction thriller, but usually attached, and a few other scattered classifications. With this, I'd suggest we label it as science fiction in the lead. Perhaps if there are more specific genre discussion to be had, a section can be made for that in the article. Tagging @Strebe: on this for further discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m confused by the intent of MOS:FILMGENRE (thanks for drawing that to my attention). There is benefit, and no harm, to listing all the genres that appear in reliable sources, since we are not talking about mutually exclusive categories. Categories help people make sense of things. As long as the category does not represent a WP:FRINGE belief, it’s going to be a useful angle to understanding the film. The crispness of a single genre doesn’t reflect reality for many films. Not that I’m trying to start a referendum on this, but… I disagree with the applicability of WP:WEIGHT to categorization in the context of blurred boundaries or boundaries that simply do not exist (not just film, but all topics). And do I trust Ebert’s designation of “thriller” more than Austin Chronicle’s omission? Sure. Anyway, a second-best way to deal with this is as you propose: a section discussing the genres. Strebe (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of it is not to swamp the lead with genres as genre is subjective, we should go with the one that is most primary. In this case, from the search above, I do not think I'm out of line in saying science fiction makes sense for the main genre in the lead. Again, I did not see any serious applications of what genre it fits into more from my quick look above, but we don't use our own personal perceptions, we go with what the general discussion is (and in this case, I have found science fiction predominantly). I think it could be good to create a section discussing nuances of the genre if you can find any, I did something similar for the film Drug War in the past. Maybe something like that @Strebe:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, I also made one for Tetsuo: The Iron Man which could also work. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)