Jump to content

Talk:Idiocracy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Image

The movie poster I supplied from www.impawards.com is not the greatest quality. Could someone find a better source? Thanks. Reimelt 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that the poster in question is actually not an official poster, and that no official poster was actually released. Anyone confirm/disprove? --Soultaco 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon user, I know, sorry, but I just wanted to comment that I'm pretty sure the poster is official. I've seen that poster up at a local MJR (Southgate, MI) for at least a month now.

That was the movie poster up at the movie theatre in LA that I saw Idiocracy in. The DVD promo poster is different. Cranialsodomy 07:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The poster now shown was the poster I saw at the theatre it played at in Austin, TX, when I saw it in Sept, 2006. I even posted a snapshot to Flickr. The poster used for this article may've changed since Soultaco's comment. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough references yet?

  • "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details." - When this notice was inserted, nothing specific about original research was noted. Can this notice be removed? The cites look pretty good so far. --Lexein 11:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm removing the tag. --Lexein 08:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To Do

Idiocracy is shaping up well. I've added the todo list, in the hopes we can get specific help to get this article to B grade and beyond. --Lexein

  • Reviews
  • shooting locations: (need photos or other references)

Joe Bauers - Private or Corporal?

Somebody inserted "Corporal" in the cast list. He's not listed as a Corporal anywhere on the web, but is listed as "Private" in all the sites I've found. He's mentioned in the narration as "Army librarian". --Lexein 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


  In the scene where Collins is telling the meeting about Joe, with an image of Joe projected behind him, if you look closely, you can see that Joe is wearing the stripes of a corporal.  This cannot be easily discerned from the clip at http://broadband.foxhome.com/idiocracy/010407/idiocracy_clip3_300K.wmv because the resolution is not quite good enough to clearly tell if it's one stripe (private) or two stripes (corporal); but the actual DVD has enough resolution to discern this.  Two stripes; he's a corporal. — Bob Blaylock 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At some point, some well known bloggers will be considered notable

And the dead will rise from the grave. This was deleted: As with Judge's Office Space, Idiocracy also gained many outspoken fans within the blogosphere, particularly among those bloggers who feel themselves to be on the outside of America's current corporate pop-culture.http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/knocked-up-and-idiocracy/

--Lexein (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, some already are considered notable. From what I can see, Mr Proyect is not. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 11:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Basically I think "Apparently, none of the shirts or pants have buttons or zippers. This was likely intended to illustrate humanity's inability to operate something as simple as a zipper or a button." should be taken out because in the scene where Joe goes to look at the crops we see a zipper and a button on his vest. And the design of his vest is just like all the other vests.

I'm sure it has more to do with sheer laziness than anything, like wearing crocs (also featured prominently in the film). --192.135.177.249 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in it's place we could mention something about the dvd case stating "DOUBLE SIDED SINGLE LAYER" but the disk you get is only one sided but the volume label is "IDIOCRACY_SIDEA"?

75.7.15.101 05:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you see him ZIP UP the vest or just put it over his head like a shirt?

-G

I don't think we see Joe put on the vest he is wearing while inspecting the corps. But Joe is so smart that I think he would have zipped and buttoned his vest, right? However he got into that outfit . . . it does have a zipper and a button on it. And it looks just like all the other blue vests in the film. In any event, the sentence in question seems to me, to be more speculation than trivia.

75.7.15.101 07:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically none of the clothes had buttons or zippers, just as none of the shoes had laces. 141.149.123.31 00:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the best way to represent this is with a couple of small cu screengrabs. The artice needs more fair use images anyways. --Lexein 09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Etan Cohen

Is Etan Cohen a pseudonym for Ethan Coen? Seems a bit of a coincidence. Yorkshiresky (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Google for Etan Cohen and it should be quickly apparent that he's not Ethan Coen.--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Brawndo

With Brawndo being released as a real soft drink, I'm thinking that it should get its own page. [1] --Steve Stair (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Brawndo is noteworthy enough to deserve its own page, but I think the product should be mentioned in this article. I tried to add a section about it, and someone thought I was blatantly advertising it (which I wasn't), and promptly removed my addition. (Which in fact was mostly a copy of part of the Rondo article, with references added.) I'd like to add the section on Brawndo again, but do not wish to do it unless others agree. (BTW, if anything is a blatent Brawndo ad, it is the link to Brawndo's website!) --Pordaria (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I discussed the deletion of Brawndo with loren.wilton, and I have tried to put up the reference in a less "advertising" method. I am not really satisified with my edits, so I hope someone will come and help improve the section. The issue I have is that I put Brawndo under a cult following, and also included info about the T-shirts. I think these are important to understand about the movie, but I'm not sure if that is the best heading... Oh well, I'm being bold :-) --Pordaria (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No source for GTAIV information and seemed like it was really reaching for a reference to Idiocracy just because GTA IV featured a drink that had electrolytes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.3.190 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how to post any source for this information. This is very hard, as not many people have seen this movie, thus not getting the reference. All I can say is: play the game yourself if you don't believe me. Not that I don't understand the point of naming sources, but in some cases first-hand information without references *is* required, and completely fine too. Look at, for instance, the list of The Simpsons episodes. Many of those have no references at all, still it's ok to add that info to WP because anyone watching the episode would get all the plot info without a problem.
I just think that we could add this in here because for obvious reasons, nobody will mention this anywhere else on the net. It's a small detail of a big, big video game. Again, if you could tell me what kind of source you would require in order to believe me and just leave that edit in, I'll do my best to give you the source you need. --Natanji (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
How about an image of it? --Reezy (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As it was written in my original edit already: it's a radio ad in the game. As in, only sound. How should I post a picture of that? --Natanji (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness

Opening paragraph suggests that amongst other things it is a satire on political correctness, however after watching it a few times I struggle to see where that aspect of the satire is. I suggest that this be removed, unless someone can come up with supporting evidence. Yorkshiresky (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if you want to include 'political correctness' as satirized in the film give a definition of 'PC' and an example of how the movie comments on it. MikeJudge Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.34.64 (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is biased against FOX. just because they don't promote a movie doesn't mean they hate it. This paragraph seems to attempt to make the case that FOX sabotaged this movie. Reference please!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.224.165 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

{{susbt:cclean|url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/synopsis}}

Superbowl Ritual

I can't find a citation yet, but I know a number of people (including myself) watch Idiocracy instead of the Superbowl. When some newspaper or magazine finally runs a piece about this, perhaps we can add a bit about this to the Cult Following section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.106.8 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

unedited F-word on comedy central tv version

shortly after the initial showing of the buttfuckers sign. a smaller version can be seen in which the f-word is not edited out. is there a place in the article for this--Aaronpark (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Idiocracy supports Eugenics?

I'm not talking about the Nazi version of Eugenics, I'm talking about the idea that your height, personality, and even your intelligence can be passed down from your parents. If that is the case, then this movie seems to suppport the idea the idea that society can lower it's IQ if less intelligent people have more kids then intelligent people. Due to the no original content rule, I cannot add this in wiki, but if anyone finds an article relating this movie to Eugenics, I believe it should be mentioned in a 'controversy' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Politically-motivated breach of WP:CIVIL with no substantive contribution.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is only one Eugenics. There is no such thing as the "Nazi Eugenics" version and the "Liberalized feel good" version of Eugenics. Don't feel shame, its ok, your a Nazi like the rest of us who like the movie. (See Kyle) Haha, you lefties are such fools. I can enjoy the movie without believing in Eugenics, some of us Christian righty fundamentalists who don't take evolution hook line and sinker can enjoy the movie by replacing the genetic dumbing down with a culture dumbing down. Although clearly the movie is about genetic dumbing down, thats Eugenics. Lefties are so dumb, and this movie proves it. Is the Director a registered Democrat?98.165.6.225 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The movie seems to supports the idea of dysgenics, the evolutionary weakening of a species. The idea of eugenics is hinted at toward the end with the time machine depicting the defeat of Nazi Germany, and stating the end of world war II was also the end of national socialism like ideologies, known for their eugenic rhetoric. This seems to indicate that the defeat of nazism, and subsequently eugenics, was a key moment in the movies hypothetical history.
The beginning of the movie hints at a genetic (rather than cultural) explanation for the dumbing down of mankind with the 140 IQ couple dying childless while the white trash multiplies.
There's also a hint at a genetic explanation toward the end, with Joe and Rita having 3 children (who are the smartest of the world), while Frito fathers 32 of the worlds most stupidest children.
There may also be a jest at environmentalist theories with Joe stating in a speech that children need to read more books and be intellectually stimulated and how that would cure the world of its current idiocy, while the audience gazes at him dumbstruck.
As it is the movie gives mixed signals, with the narrator giving a clear genetic explanation at the start of the movie, Joe giving an environmental explanation near the end of the movie, and only the slightest nod of the head toward a support of Eugenics that is probably too vague to be notable for the article. --Zero g (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The user that refused to sign on before editing is clearly delusional. Where have I stated my political beliefs? What makes you believe I'm a Democrat? (hint: I'm not) Has all the debating on public forums made you believe that anyone that doesn't share your precise form of belief a democrat? I bet you see a liberal conspiracy in this edit as well. Anywho, since the Nazis believed that Eugenics justified exterminating the Jews, I think there is a clear difference between that and the one I mentioned above. Eugenics in general has a negative stigma with many liberals, so I never knew there was a "liberal feel good" version, whatever that means. --Jtd00123 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the movie itself stated flatly at the very beginning what its premise was, which is: contrary to popular belief, evolution does not converge to perfection, and certainly has no built-in bias to intelligence; it always favors whatever is most conducive to further reproduction. This is not by "design" (intelligent or otherwise); it's an observation of fact, as solid and impartial as the observation of gravity.
Note also that this fact does not necessarily favor the survival of a species; it's quite possible that traits that are pro-propagation in the short term will lead to the extinction of a species in the long term. This is what's happening in Idiocracy: the successful breeders have become dominant in the 500 years that Joe has been asleep, but it's all about to collapse.
But yeah, in the end it's Just a Movie(TM), so you can feel free to cheerfully ignore any of the above and enjoy the show.--NapoliRoma (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I should also mention that "the idea that your height, personality, and even your intelligence can be passed down from your parents" isn't Eugenics; it's genetics, and pretty well proven. Height can be pretty obviously tied to genetics—dwarfism, for example, is a classic example of dominant and recessive genes—but many personality traits have now been mapped to specific genes, too.
Eugenics is the more abhorrent idea that the gene pool should be actively cleansed, especially by bumping people off that you don't happen to like. The annihilation of the Jews was really less about eugenics and more that Hitler thought they were tarded and their shit was fucked up, more or less, quite early in his life; my impression was that he came up with eugenics as an excuse to act on his irrational hatred long after that. But if you want to know more about the Nazis and eugenics, read up on Action T4 and prepare to be revolted.
In any event, any connection between genocide and genetics that the Nazis attempted to make does not invalidate the reality of genetics or natural selection; many other otherwise sterling concepts have been twisted to horrific ends as well.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the feel good double-talk liberalism. The movie is based entirely on reverse-Eugenics, and Eugenics goes hand in hand with Darwin and Evolution, they are inseperable, and inseperable means you can't worm your way out of feeling guilty about enjoying a movie based on Eugenics. *points finger* You are a Nazi, hehe stupid liberals.98.165.6.225 (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

--Vonbontee (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Dude, wouldn't your opinions be of more use elsewhere? None of that stuff is at all relevent to the actual purpose of this page, i.e. to improve the article.

Way late to the party, I realize, but what you’re talking about isn’t eugenics, it’s genetics.

Social order and speech

I noticed that the higher one goes up the "food chain" in their society, the more "normal" sounding speech becomes. I.e. the President sounds the least retarded in their society. This may be my imagination, but if it is true, it shows more than a passing thought was given to the film's language and social classes. Septagram (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is pretty much the point of the movie. Lots42 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think the most normal guy was the CEO of Brawndo. But Freto, for all his faults, was also to some extent "with it" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.104.52 (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot copyvio issue

On 14 Jan 2010 the plot section of the article was tagged as a possible copyvio of an IMDB synopsis. This article is no longer listed at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Older_than_7_days but there is no indication of administrator action on the issue. It is possible that the article was never listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Nevertheless, I have reverted to before the copyvio tag was placed (there were no substantive intervening edits). My reason for doing so is that the IMDB synopsis appears to be a copy of this article. The IMDB synopsis is listed as last being edited one year ago. That synopsis appears, verbatim, in this article going back much further than that. It appears someone copy/pasted the plot synopsis from Wikipedia into an IMDB synopsis. Rather than this section being a copyright violation, it appears that the IMDB synopsis was copied this article without proper GFDL attribution. I have restored the plot section without the copyvio tag. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is no longer listed because I cleared it after removing the plot section, which is in fact an administrative action. While the IMDB synopsis has not been edited in a year, no indication demonstrates that the Wikipedia article predates IMDB. Last but not least, restoring dubious material without first verifying its origins and discussing it here is a misapplication of WP:BOLD.
Any further attempts to reintroduce the text verbatim has to be argued here, with definite evidence about the precedence. MLauba (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am also an admin who also works WP:CP. User:MLauba, who has limited time online today, asked me if I would pick up this investigation, since he said that there is evidence that the infringement may be reversed.
First, the dating at IMDb is not in itself definitive. Unless a subscriber to the "Pro" version is able to access the history, we can't know how extensive the last update might have been or what preceded it. He could have added a sentence or cleaned up a few grammatical errors.
However, the wayback machine is being cooperative today (would that it would always), and while it's only showing one archived version of this page, it is a very helpful version. The plot summary at IMDb looked like this on 12/18/2007. On 12/16/2007, it looked like this in our article. Since there is a several month margin of error on Wayback, I went back a few extra months in our article just to be sure. In July 2007, it looked like this. Not exactly the same, but with substance enough to strongly suggest natural evolution here.
It seems that reverse infringement is likely, so I'll restore the plot summary as it was. Thank you for bringing up the issue, but do, please, be careful about restoring text without positively verifying reverse infringement. Copyright is not an area is not an area where we can afford to make many assumptions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Jesus Christ! For a dark comedy movie like Idiocracy, there are not many ways you could write a synopsis about it. There is really not much in-between-the-lines analysis that is "inferred" in the synopsis, given its nature as a description of the plot rather than being a review of the movie. So independently written synopses are unlikely to have significant differences. Most differences would be in manner of omission and stylistic emphasis, nothing that in of itself worthy of even a $300 lawsuit. Is it a coincidence that the "Reception" section has long had more citations than the rest of the article? I think not. Opinions will vary and contradict, but the plot is what it is. People can add citations to the synopsis if there is evidence in reliable third-party sources. I believe most people who added to the plot section watched the movie themselves, so in any case that would be a violation of the movie's copyright if it were not supported by Fair Use.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 13:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
People can watch the film and provide a summary of it as long as they are only descriptive about it. This is backed by WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." There are also guidelines related to this at WP:FILMPLOT. Really, the problem that the summary has currently is that it is too long, being over 1,200 words. Per WP:PLOT, it should be concise, like the "Plot" section at White Dog, which is at the short end of the spectrum. Erik (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Kmarinas86, there are an amazing lot of ways to write about something. English is a very word rich language. :) Copyright problems enter in when a synopsis follows too closely on the language (and sometimes structure, if not straightforward) of a previously published synopsis or when the synopsis is detailed enough to constitute a derivative work of the original (at which point it is no longer fair use). Both are forbidden by policy. Inference is not necessary; factual descriptions are also subject to copyright, as long as these meet the deliberately low threshold of creativity under US law. We don't evaluate copyright problems on the basis of whether or not a lawsuit is likely, which is good practice, since the Wikimedia Foundation is vulnerable to considerations of the whole and not just a single article. What is de minimis in one article may not be if present in a hundred. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Release issues

What about the claim that it bombed in test screenings? (needs to be googled around a bit to see where it originated. I find it rather common in tertiary sources) Dysmorodrepanis 12:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An Ain't it Cool News blog entry carried a report from an anonymous reader who went to a UK screening. Not very citable, sadly. That reader never wrote anything anywhere else that I could find. It may be that Fox made screening viewers sign non-disclosures. --Lexein (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Description

Since the opening sequence in the movie differs somewhat from what was apparently in the script (there is no longer a split-screen effect, but rather a family tree graphic that exponentially grows), should the screenplay excerpt be removed? It still serves the purpose of setting up the "e/volution has stopped functioning" concept. 4SquareCommish 18:15, 4 September 2006

I only know the split-screen version; since what I was shown was a pirated version and I didn't care to inquire the source, I think it was form the DVD. Dysmorodrepanis 12:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the opening as written by Judge and Coen actually indicate that "educated élites" are the font of societal intelligence? This does not sound right to me. Bustter (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Nothing about elites, or education. Only "strongest, fastest, smartest", "more intelligent", "left the intelligent to become an endangered species." The opening scenes are viewable for reference - see External Links. --Lexein (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Demographic-economic paradox

IMHO this paradox is more than relevant - it's the main thesis stated at the beginning of the film. Perhaps it belongs integrated into the main text, rather than as a see also. --Lexein (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation author order

I'm for the conversion to templates, and finished what Horkana started. Question is, author last-first, or first-first? I prefer last-first.--Lexein (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of 'other stories', reversion, off-page discussion.

The following discussion was started by User talk:Lexein#Idiocracy on User talk:Niteshift36's talk page following this and following edits, in which Lexein was not involved. Since no discussion occurred on this page by any of the editing parties, a 3rd Opinion is welcome, if only based on the extant discussion. --Lexein (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Idiocracy

It's not usual or helpful to simply DELETE an entire section while an editor is working to improve it. You don't indicate whether you made a good faith effort to find sources yourself - this is a vital part of WP:BURDEN. If you suggest discussion, you should actually start the discussion. The {{dubious}} tag will also help move the article toward improvement. Arguments should not take place through reverts and edit summaries. I do not entirely disagree with your points, just the method. Please reread WP:Five Pillars, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:OWN, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Lexein (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First, coming to lecture me about a bunch of wikilinks is not the way to start out. I've been around here as long as you have. Using live space to experiment with the addition isn't the way to go. That's what the sandbox is for. That's what sub-pages to your user page is for. Since you like linking to policies so much, You're allegations of ownership and Idontlike it are lacking in the basic tenant of WP:AGF and bordering on ownership yourself. Further, you might consider re-reading WP:RS. Now, if you'd like to stop this silliness and actually discuss the issue, I'd be happy to do so on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandboxing (which you didn't suggest to the other editor) isn't not on for sections that have been with an article for a while. In-place improvement is entirely appropriate. Clear suggestions (and edits) are more productive than deletion.
I don't find applying both sides of WP:BURDEN to be "silly." I stand by my comments above in their entirety, as civil and AGF. You suggested the discussion but still have not started it. Though I did suggest reading materials, those were pamphlets on the table, not hurtling phonebooks. Some folks had never seen 'em, and have in the past thanked me. If you didn't like Idiocracy, please don't(!) look at The Marching Morons. --Lexein (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Apparently you completely missed what I said. First, it doesn't matter how long something has been there. I can go to numerous movie articles and find "in pop culture" sections that have been there for a long period of time. That doesn't make them appropriate. Second, adding OR, regardless of how long the section has been there is not appropriate and just labelling it as possible OR doesn't excuse it. Of course it's OR and OR doesn't belong. Period. Giving me a litany of policies that I'm not running afoul of isn't civil or AGF, nor are your baseless allegations. Personally, I loved Idiocracy. There is more truth in it than people realize. However, that doesn't mean I can insert my own OR. WP:OR is clear: "No original research" is one of three core content policies. There is no exception that I've seen saying "it's ok to leave it in while under revision" Have you seen that exception? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said, "I do not entirely disagree with your points, just the method." Reading WP:BURDEN - the deleter has an obligation to make a good faith effort to find a source to support that which is about to be deleted; nothing more than a good faith effort. Lots of editors do: it's a good guideline, and a good guideline within it. The history of that Idiocracy section is that many, many (non-notable, non-RS) sources had cumulatively pointed out the obvious link between Idiocracy, Kornbluth, and Huxley, in different combinations. The section was started as soon as there was the slightest shred of scholarly and media support for the notion. That's not necessarily OR, and you know it. It's arguably not, to point out what's been sourced. When you yell "synth" it's helpful to point out which specific words you despise, and even just delete. I would support that. Wholesale deletion is utterly utterly useless, and flies in the face of ongoing, no deadline, WP:Article improvement. Deletions should be reserved for vandalism, obvious nonsense, falsehoods, violations of BLP, etc. and a host of other reasons; not for this. Of course Wikipedia's voice should not be used to speak original research, but "stories of time travel to a dystopian future are not new" followed by a short list of well-known notable stories and their publication dates, and reviews which support the "time travel" and "dystopian future" portions of the claim, doesn't seem at all to rise to the level of OR, to me, at all. --Lexein (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to move this entire thread, including your responses, ordered in time, to Talk:Idiocracy, to request WP:Third opinion. Ok by you? --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Copy, don't move please. A clear and unbiased consensus must be formed before removing the section, on the creation of which certain editors have worked hard enough. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Hi, I'd be happy to look into this and offer a third opinion, but first two questions: 1) As one of the two disputants in this section, Niteshift36, by "I quit" do you mean to say that the dispute has been resolved (on your end at least)? and 2) are there more than two editors currently involved in this dispute (wherever the bulk of the content of it may be currently located)? Either case may rule out a further 3O response. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • To be honest, no, it shouldn't be interpreted as the debate being resolved. I am just not in the mood to get unwarranted lectures about WP:Five Pillars, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:OWN, and WP:BATTLEGROUND from an editor who even went so far as to suggest my edits were because I just didn't like the movie. I made an attempt to explain why I didn't think that live article space shouldn't be used as a sandbox and about synth and got more wikilinks back that didn't apply to what I had said. That indicated to me that either he missed the point or something. I'm sure he has the best intentions with the addition. But even going beyond the whole synth line of discussion, I don't why it would seem ok to put an entry in and then label your own entry with an OR tag. OR is prohibited. If you consider it OR yourself, then you shouldn't be inserting it. What on earth makes it so pressing to insert something into an article about a 4 year old movie that you'd ignore the OR prohibition? Frankly, I'm getting so sick of how things are going on around this place (not this article), I just don't have the inclination to "fight" about it. Hence my "Just do whatever you want" response. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not sure I'm understanding, from the comments in this section, what exactly is at the center of the dispute regarding the content of this article. Could I ask each of you to try to express as briefly and precisely as possible what you are disagreeing about specifically with regard to this article? Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Niteshift36
...It centers around this [2]. I believe that, as it stands, it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Lexein even labeled part of it as OR. My position has been simple: Live space shouldn't be used for experimentation. While Wikipedia is always a work in progress, that doesn't mean the work needs to be done in the article, particularly when adding OR into the mix. Simply put it on a user page, work on it until it meets the criteria for inclusion, then add it. Also, I mentioned that the 2 sources used are questionable. The "Atlantic Free Press" is written by "registered users" and lacks the editorial oversight that WP:RS requires. IIRC, Lew Rockwell.com has been rejected at RSN before. As I said above, I have no doubt the editor has the best of intentions. The SYNTH issue can be discussed/debated when there is a finished product to discuss. I'm not rejecting inclusion, I'm saying delay inclusion until you have what you want to include. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Lexein

It centers around this wholesale deletion, deprecation of a non-blog source as: "a blog that probably wouldn't pas RS" [sic], and all the fallout from that. I took a non-editing stance on this section, as soon as it was deleted. My position is that deleting the section, the improper deprecation of sources resulting in their inadequate replacement, and defacing with OR and/or SYNTH tags are all unmerited - neither "OR" nor "SYNTH" have been adequately proven. No original facts, nor original synthesis is offered in the basic statements made by the sources. The conclusions should of course be rewritten to avoid SYNTH. So here are four better approaches, which are more in keeping with WP:Five Pillars:

  1. Rewrite or indeed revert to prior versions to avoid perceived WP:SYNTH per that guideline.
  2. Help to find improved sources per WP:BURDEN, to wit: It has always been good practice (WP:PRESERVE) to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them,
  3. Actually move the disputed sentence(s), including sources, to Talk, and actually start the discussion, as opposed to "Discuss on the talk page, if you'd like" in the edit summary after two deletions. WP:BRD squarely places the burden of discussion on both editors. I failed to get Niteshift36, as the deleting editor, to discuss here.
  4. Or just boldly selectively remove the sole offending sentence which appears to be unsourced and is presently tagged OR. That sentence was tagged by an editor who did not write or add the material, and merely differentiated it from the sourced, non-OR, non-SYNTH material, full stop.

Here are some WP:RS, by the way, found in, oh, four seconds.

Film: The Morons Shall Inherit the Earth : Mike Judge’s “Idiocracy” (subscription required) Steve Sailer, October 9, 2006, archived by the author here. Ties Idiocracy to Kornbluth to dysgenics.
Brave New World Revisited Aldous Huxley, 1958. (Rosetta Books, 2001). Ties Brave New World to dysgenics(p. 15) & future dystopia (p.1).
etc.

It boils down to this:

  • Was this version OR or SYNTH? Both? Neither? In progress? Salvagable? In need of expansion?
  • What about the version prior to this edit?

--Lexein (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I haven't seen Idiocracy myself yet (except near the beginning where a military official is giving a presentation that segue-ways into his "original research" on pimping, lol!:), but it reminds me of the Woody Allen film Sleeper. The lead section of the article on that film presently contains the line: "The film contains several plot points which parody or spoof several well-known works of science-fiction, most notably H. G. Wells' novel The Sleeper Awakes and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell." It seems to me that something similar is being done in this article, and in this case is being done with at least some attempt to provide something like a "reliable source" for it. Whether those sources are the best or most "reliable" ones to use in this case seems a valid question.
(Just wanted to comment to indicate that I am considering a third opinion on this issue, but am not sure I have arrived at one yet; I have to run now, but will comment further in hopefully a few hours' time. Thank you both for your statements above. Regards! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


  • See, that sort of "found in oh 4 seconds" kind of sarcasm is exactly why I just left it alone. When you are writing your own research (and even label it as OR), thinking that someone else is going to go do your research is absurd. It's not like we're verifying a birthdate or something. And I stand by my assessment of the sources and feel confident that if I took it to RSN, I'd find out that I wasn't alone. Love how you have to worry about typos and all the other snarkiness in the response. This is exactly why I didn't want to get sucked back into this. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop it. That's twice you've made allegations involving me: if you think I wrote or labeled OR, quote it, or post a diff. I think you'll find you're in error. WP:BURDEN - I didn't write it, I've just been on both sides of it. --Lexein (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh for cying out loud. Here is a molehill, can you make a mountain out of it? You told me to tag it. I did. Telling me to tag is is admitting it is OR. Whatever. Will it make you happy if I say you didn't personally add the tag? There. Done. Now can you move on to the actual issue? If you want to keep notpicking silly stuff, then you can start by apologzing for your allegations regarding ownership and "idontlikeit". No, don't bother. You won't mean it and I don't want to listen to you argue about how it's not uncivil. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:RS was not the basis for the OR or SYNTH claims, so WP:RSN is a distraction here. The basis of this RF3O was OR and SYNTH. Also note, RS are found above, so RSN will fail. --Lexein (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC) edit: (sorry, I meant "RSN will fail to support a section deletion") --Lexein (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC))
  • First off, you can't limit a 3rd opinion to only opining about specific issues. Second, if you don't have a RS, then it's OR or fails WP:V. Items from a RS can be formed into SYNTH. When I addressed RS, I was addressing the sources actually being used in the article. I could care less what you trot out on the talk page. If those two sources stay in the article, I may just decide to take it to RSN. I've been there enough to feel confident that the first would fail and the second, lewrockwell.com has been discussed at RSN several times and the opinion there, aside from economic issues, is not usually very good. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Assuming for the moment that that is what would happen at RSN with these sources – can you find any other sources for the substance of the text in question that would be acceptable RSs (by consensus), Lexein? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the lag and any confusion. See edit: above. Here are the two solid WP:RS mentioned above which properly support claims in the section (in addition to one of the prior removed sources, and one of the current sources):
Film: The Morons Shall Inherit the Earth : Mike Judge’s “Idiocracy” (subscription required) Steve Sailer, October 9, 2006, archived by the author here. Ties Idiocracy to Kornbluth to dysgenics.
Brave New World Revisited Aldous Huxley, 1958. (Rosetta Books, 2001). Ties Brave New World to dysgenics(p. 15) & future dystopia (p.1).
--Lexein (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I don't really have any problem with the first one (I see it does make a connection between this film and "dystopia"), and I could even see from there the second becoming relevant, too (though this article is neither the dysgenics nor the dystopia article, and there's no source yet directly relating this movie to Huxley, so only very brief mention, if any, is acceptable here in my view). Let's assume those sources are reliable enough (and if not then let's go to RSN). Is there a problem that still needs to be addressed with the wording of the disputed text now, Niteshift? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Uniformly stupid human society devoid of individual responsibility or consequences?

First of all, great, great article. I think every plot point in this movie is so insightful and every character so archetypal that I'd hate to delete any of it.

I wouldn't say it's a human society devoid of individual responsibility and consequences, though. There are definitely consequences for, say, "talking like a fag". More like what's missing is abstract thought, intellectual curiosity and coherent notions of justice. I'm thinking the defense lawyer condemning his own client for interrupting "Ow My Balls", the Brawndo conversation and subjecting people to "Rehabilitations". It's men in the process of turning back into chimpanzees.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Added "social responsibility". Thinking the woman who's put in the custody of Carl's Jr because she doesn't have money to feed her children, and the failure to preserve the knowledge necessary to keep society functional.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar Stories

I just wanted to point out that in Aldous Huxley's, "Brave New World", no one is in suspended animation as the Similar Stories section reads. John, or, "the Savage", enters after being born naturally, which is related. As it is it describes the plot of, "Brave New World", incorrectly. ZeeFBI (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Only time for a quick read here, but Henry Kutner's "Marching Morons" doesn't seem to be mentioned among similar stories. The similarity is so close that I would fear a copyright infringement lawsuit, were I involved in the film. Certainly a prominent mention of this story--and link to its Wikipedia entry--is merited. 67.35.255.26 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck getting any reliable, independent source to survive the sort of battle I've been putting up with, as exemplified above and in the discussion archives. --Lexein (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
When the film entered theatrical release, it never played on any screen closer to New York City than one in Montreal. While it was in production I personally notified the agency - in New York - responsible for the Kornbluth literary estate (because "The Marching Morons" was, at the time of Idiocracy's production and release, still under copyright protection) that the film constituted a violation of the author's intellectual property rights. I was told by my contact at the agency that they hadn't heard anything about the film before they'd received my call. Might could be that the extremely limited release of this movie was advised by the production company's legal department, trying to walk a tightrope between contractual obligations to Mike Judge and the likelihood of yet another copyright infringement lawsuit. Tucci78 (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting - any published (print or electronic) reliable source for what you've written? --Lexein (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. That would be a solid addition to the article if we could source it. Millahnna (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Running Man references

I don't want to add a popular references section here without running it by everyone concerned.

The "Re-Education Night" show is a take on Running Man. I realised it's undeniable when a contestant on Running Man was dressed up and held a flame-thrower like that fella who was sent to finish off Joe.

Am I right? Shall I do my research and add this?

DarkRabbitRevenge (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhmmm... do you mean "Monday Night Rehabilitation"? I don't know of any "Re-Education Night". Also, I think you'd be wrong. While the repeated accidental flame-throwing of the area assistant is a clear and obvious sight-gag, neither the two characters nor their outfits or gear look anything alike between the two films. From runningman fireball character: http://mimg.ugo.com/201005/44931/ugo-50jp-fireball.jpg from Idiocracy Beef Supreme with flamethrower: http://www.enjoy-your-style.com/images/beef-supreme.jpg Centerone (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

BThis user knows that Brawndo has what plants want

{{user 1|black|#3FFF00|id-fc=#3FFF00|B|This user knows that [[Idiocracy|Brawndo has what plants want]]}}

I've created a userbox that people can add to their user pages for Idiocracy. Just copy the code below it and enjoy! JQF • Talk • Contribs 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No no no. Brawndo's got what plants crave. ...it's got electrolytes. Adm58 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmm yes but ...it's got molecules. --Lexein (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Carl Jr.'s has more MOL-E-CULES! I know because my Omnibro food dispenser told me so! Centerone (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
BThis user knows that Brawndo's got what plants crave

{{user 1|black|#3FFF00|id-fc=#3FFF00|B|This user knows that [[Idiocracy|Brawndo's got what plants crave]]}}

Thanks, I thought it was bit off. JQF • Talk • Contribs 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know what electrolytes are?82.3.253.45 03:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

; whereupon, the author sucks.

Reading this article is painful. Someone who owns a dictionary and knows some "smart people words" clearly wrote this, trying to sound intelligent by sprinkling in words like "whereupon" and "the latter" (used incorrectly, I might add). Someone with an *actual* understanding of how English works should give it a once over. --Buddy13 (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you know, there's no single editor or author, and we do need more, namely you. Give more editing a shot. I think some editors try on airs partially as a joke, especially at this article. Because the encyclopedia can be edited by anyone, there's a chance that someone ill-taught in the proper use of whereupon and other embellishments, and not familiar with WP:PEACOCK, will edit an article. You can be sure that the offenses you noted here are minor, compared to this (since reverted).
I've noticed an angry tone in your edit summaries. Wikipedia isn't the cause of your suffering, nor is it your whipping boy. We're all here to build and improve the encyclopedia, and we (most of us) try to do it without harsh rhetoric or snark, though we are (most of us) quite experienced and talented in their use. It was, I think, only the tone of your remarks which led to their slow adoption. --Lexein (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Best encyclopedia prose ever

Fox might be shying away from the cautionary tale about low-intelligence dysgenics, because the company did not want to offend its viewers

Excellent. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

T'was the source, not us. We shall pass along your approbation. --Lexein (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Uniformly stupid world, not U.S.

Discussion has gone off-topic (WP:NOTFORUM)

'... to discover that dysgenics and cultural anti-intellectualism have resulted in a uniformly stupid United States, called "Uhh-merica."' It's actually the whole world, not just the U.S. But the film centers on events in the U.S., so perhaps no change should be made. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-07-8 11:57 11:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the world is uniformly stupid in the film, but I think the film is especially a commentary on the currently popular American values taken to their logical extreme. MagicFlyinLemur 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The only stupid people are the people on the left who love a movie based on Eugenic theories, too ignorant to recognize a Eugenics theory, and too lame and partisan to make the connection to other Eugenic proponenets in history. Those on the left actually need someone from the right thinking mind to come up to them and say, "Hey your not suppose to be laughing," but since those on the left are too braindead as it is they cannot originally come up with a thought of their own. It has to be fed to them with a tube.68.106.248.211 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Eat my penis. 128.210.12.39 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I think this helps make the case for a uniformly stupid world: left, right and otherwise. Hashashin 17:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I would consider myself a leftist, and though I think the Right is usually more ignorant than the left (though I'm disillusioned by electoral politics and am therefore non-partisan), the film is based on eugenics, and is ill-conceived. For one thing, it entirely practically ignores social influencs that humans have and chooses rather to focus almost entirely on evolution. While doing this, it also perpetuates stereotypes about class--notice that the 'idiots' breeding ridiculously are trailer trash. I'm not saying there aren't people like this that exist, but the reality is much more complex than the film tries to make it. It seems to offer the solution of: Okay, smart people breed, dumb people don't. Aside from this being precisely related to eugenics, the film also makes the class connections. So really, the message it sends is: Okay, rich people breed, poor people don't breed. Other problems with the film exist, such as the fact that nobody seemed to realize the message they sent by making the president of a uniformly stupid country the token black guy, but most of the problems stem from this overly simplistic and flawed view of society. Of course, none of this is relevant to the article, as it seems nobody prominent has criticized the film in such a manner. Still, I thought I'd join in on the discussion.Andrewlargemanjones (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
first guy that posted is dumb but still right. third guy is wrong, smart, and sadly often right.. but either way, isn't this kind of contrary to how Mike Judge usually thinks? Have I had him pegged wrong all this time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, brother. More political correctness, right? Guys, this film is a satire -- a logical continuation of Beavis and Butt-Head -- not a promotion for eugenics. The idea that "dumb" people are more likely to have large families of equally "dumb" children holds a (very) tiny shred of truth, and this serves as a convenient conceit on which to base the story.

My reason for posting was to point out that this article neglects to explain Regression toward the mean, which makes any attempt to eugenically "improve" the human race (or to make it worse) effectively impossible. Bright people have dumb children and vice versa. Plain people have handsome children (qv, Fabio Lanzoni), and so on.

In practice, it doesn't matter why people are getting dumber -- but they are. It's no wonder most viewers didn't like it. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with this comment is that it is wrong. Perhaps because YOU are dumb. But intelligent people...who use FACTS...know that humans are seeiing an increase in intelligence.

Then again, in practice (e.g. most people are much more like characters in the movie than compared to other movies with clever acting and fast talking heroes) I'd suggest that the film came too close to truth and that's my supposed explanation for commercial disaster.. [KL] 85.177.144.38 (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

another possibility for commercial disaster was that it was horribly written, horribly acted, and had a lot of plot holes, like the very advanced technology shown in a film about a dumb society. And no...you can't say that it was technology invented before the dumbing down of society, because everything breaks down eventually and has to be fixed.

people talking about eugenics are focusing too much on how scientifically sound the premise is, instead of enjoying the satire.. the real cause would be the glorification of being stupid that is prevelant through out our society and culture.. shows like jerry springer, the jersey shore, and other reality shows that popularize stupid people and make other emulate them..but like everyone else..... I LIKE MONEY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.181.1 (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone please mention a specific quote or scene that confirmes that the movie is indeed telling a story of dysgenics -- a decrease in intellligence based on biological heredity -- rather than merely cultural deterioration? --Extremophile (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

From the prologue: "Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species." This is followed by a comparison between "smart" and "stupid" family trees. Then at the very end: "Joe and Rita had three children, the smartest kids in the world. Vice-President Frito took eight wives and had a total of thirty-two kids, thirty-two of the dumbest kids ever to walk the earth." Dcxf (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Gross?

Current text indicates that gross revenue from the film was $400K on a budget of roughly $25 million. Granted it probably lost money but that much seems unlikely given non theater sales. Seems most likely that would be from the opening weekend or at most theatres only. Lycurgus (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

boxofficemojo.com indicates that rental revenue by 2007-02-18 was 9 million so it probably is approaching break-even, think I saw it after that. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
However, rottentomatoes says that after dropping off the top ten rentals, a title usually does another 60% so, in that case would be a net loss and appropriate text for the gross figure would be "~14 million USD". 74.78.162.229 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
All these comments are assuming that the studio gets 100% of the money from box office and sales, and that there is no additional cost in producing and distributing the DVDs. DVD's don't make themselves, and stores don;t sell DVDs for free. It is VERY rare for a movie that bombs at the box office to recoup its losses from DVD and TV. Even most movies that almost break even when you factor in the box office just barely break even overall. After the first month or so, the studios get less and less of the box office earned. Not to mention...spending $25 million in 2005 to get a total of $25 million over the next 6-7 years is not really breaking even in a world where inflation is the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This section needed cleanup so I've moved the links here until they can be worked into the main body of text in the article (quoted, rewritten, etc and referenced). --Pixelface 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Scenes

Scenes from the opening of the film, from Fox Home Video website: Two family trees,

Release

Reviews

External Links - Progress on cleanup

Added back the still-working(!) Fox Video film scenes as External Links per WP:EL. Added Release external links back into the text where referenced.
Question - is Ain't It Cool News notable now? --Lexein (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Gee...this list of links isn't biased toward favorable reviews AT ALL! That is just what Wikipedia is all about...extremely one-sided articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, awesome. You're welcome to add bad reviews from independent reliable sources to the list! --Lexein (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Jackson Browne

So Jackson Brown has an opinion about the movie? Why should it be included here? He's a singer that watched a movie. There is nothing notable about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What does Debbie Gibson think about Casablanca? Does Joe the Plumber like Risky Business? How about Sara Rue's take on 2001: A Space Odyssey? Good grief, who cares? DreamGuy (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, let's just take ALL commentary about the movie out of the piece, so that NO opinions about it are mentioned at all. Heck, why not take out the critical reception while we're at it? But let's not stop there--let's take every quote about how anyone feels out of every piece on Wikipedia. Never mind that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, let's make sure it also only covers topics themselves and no public discussion of those topics at all, no matter how much those very opinions--say, for instance, on how socially relevant a film or a scientific theory has become--are vital to a greater understanding of the topic. We might as well rename the entire site WIKIHANDYANSWERBOOK.Boomshadow talk contribs 01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

See also section: a mess, with too broadly associated terms?

The section includes several dystopian novels & short stories whose only main connection is the "dystopian" characterization, then various concepts such as Fertility and intelligence which inform the films premise, though broadly, and probably are not appropriately included here IMHO. Do any more experienced Wikipedians or others have thoughts on this?

Propose removing the "See also" section for now. Thoughts? Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The section as it currently stands is as follows...

See also

what do you think of each item? just consider them one by one and make decisions. Centerone (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

fair enough, several of these are intriguing, may slow up a bit for now, as the way the film parodies some of these ideas is one reason I have an interest in it... Boogerpatrol (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good project. Take the first two stories. Harrison Bergeron is about the govt. intentionally handicapping people to make everyone equal. That's not the concept in this film at all. 451? Government control and govt. restricting knowledge. Again, almost the opposite of Idiocracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Op-ed piece

An op-ed writer uses this movie to illustrate her opinions on the Republican party. How does that tell us about the movie? It tells us that the op-ed writer has an opinion about Republicans. Nor does it "illustrate the enduring impact of the movie". It doesn't show and IMPACT by the movie at all. How did the movie change anything? It didn't. I liked the movie, but this notion that it somehow "impacted" the national political scene is overselling. It was a convenient illustration point by an opinion writer to further her opinions of Republicans. the use isn't about the movie, it's about a political agenda. Further, the notion that "it's a valid opinion" (valid to whom?) doesn't wash. Just because someone wrote something doesn't make it notable, relevant or relieve us from the standards of WP:UNDUE. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The columnist specifies that both liberals and conservatives are to blame, and while there are far more viewpoints in the U.S., those are the most powerful in Congress itself. Typically, the Democratic Party is typically identified as liberal, while the Republican Party is typically considered conservative in viewpoint. There is no agenda in the column, and your repeated removal of this mention not only takes away a very key illustration of the film's continuing relevance in our culture, but suggests you have an agenda of your own. Further attempts to remove this mention will result in rollback and vandalism warnings.

ETA: I reexamined WP:UNDUE, and based on its tenets, you are so far off base it's ridiculous. Stop now.Boomshadow talk contribs 18:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • First, I see you already forced it back in, showing you have no intention of a good faith discussion of the issue. Actually, UNDUE does apply, but that's not the real issue here. The claim that she is equal in blaming liberals and conservatives doesn't really wash. She talks about Bachmann, Palin, the Republican congress and Schwarrzenegger compared to Weiner. 4 to 1? Yeah, she's so balanced and equal in her assessment. As for your allegation that I have an agenda.....well, you already showed you don't operate in good faith, so why would you start now. My "agenda" is to keep the article about the movie, not about someone using it to further their political opinions. Can you show anything that makes this article notable or relevant? Anything that makes it more than just her column of the week? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm in agreement with Niteshift36 in the main here. 1. It's a misuse of the source: it doesn't mention Palin or Congress in general at all. 2. Stop forcing the section back in while it's under discussion. 3. Understand what single-sourcing is, and that one source doesn't justify a section (or even a sentence) unless that source is well regarded and cited by others in the field, and the topic and point made by that source is supported by other sources. That op-ed piece was not discussed by other reliable sources, and it doesn't mention any substantative other sources, so it's not particularly worthy of note yet.
    IMHO the op-ed piece's greatest value is establishing that part of the film's legacy is discussion of the fear of an Idiocracy-like future in entertainment, education, and political circles or some such. Its value is not in discussing Palin, or Congress, etc. If several other and better RS (books, long-form pieces) report on such discussions, then a sentence like that might belong. --Lexein (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's only "under discussion" because Niteshift36 is offended by the content, not because of any violation of WP:UNDUE, and being offended by content is not a criterion for editing. The fact is that the politicians Niteshift36 cited routinely failed basic civics facts in their discussions of events of the day, which makes them fairly good candidates for modern day "Idiocracy" characters. I say it's vandalism, plain and simple, to keep it out. I still think a vandalism warning is in order. The quote is a clear illustration of the film's relevance in current events commentary, period. I will leave it out and hold off on warnings, FOR NOW, but I maintain defiantly that Niteshift36 is completely and utterly in the wrong here, and I vehemently reject the inflammatory accusation that I am "forcing" an edit back in over a manufactured "discussion." I defy you both. Any additions to my talk page by either of you also will be rolled back and reported.Boomshadow talk contribs 01:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Just adding "defiantly" to your personal attack doesn't make you right or credible. You can't even make your argument without going off on a personal rant about politicians failing civics facts betrays you. You shifted the focus to the individuals. (And, BTW, I didn't "cite" the politicians, your girl Daum did.) Yes, you "forced" it in. It was reverted and rather than discuss it, you forced it in and then made a half-hearted attempt to discuss it. (I say half-hearted because it was mainly insults, incorrect summaries and threats). Lexein put this very well. Now you can keep telling yourself (and others) the lie (yes, it's a lie) that the only reason it's being discussed is because it offends me or you can actually look at the fact that this article is about the movie and that Daum's opinion has no bearing on the movie and was not part of anything bigger than just pumping out the column of the week. It didn't spark some bigger discussion. It didn't become the start of some change or movement. It was simply the opinion of the week. (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to establish credibility by adding "defiantly," I was basically drawing a line in the sand and stating my opinion of how ridiculous you've been about this. And "I don't think this should be in the article" is NOT a discussion, or else every time someone stated that, they'd then be able to argue that they have carte blanche to take out any fool thing they like. Your stance is unsound and taking out discussions of topics from outside sources is ruinous to those topics. I didn't make a "half-hearted" attempt to discuss it. I told you off, and rightly so. I think this type of deletion sets a terrible precedent; I think you have COMPLETELY misapplied WP:UNDUE; I think you have utterly failed to support your viewpoint, and now you're accusing me of LYING. Go to Hell.Boomshadow talk contribs 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If all I'd been saying was that I didn't think it belonged, you might have something resembling a point. But I said more than that and you're left with another mischaracterization. I find it so ironic that you so quickly abandoned discussion, went to "telling me off", then devolved to "go to hell" while discussing the movie Idiocracy. Sounds to me like you're only a few steps from watching 'Ow, my Balls' while muttering "I like money". You also seem to ignore the fact that I'm not the only one who thinks it doesn't belong. In any case, when you've resorted to telling people off and "go to hell", you've clearly stopped trying anything constructive. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for not reverting further. I think you might be exaggerating Niteshift36's response, and focusing on editors, instead of the article. IMO undeleting a disputed edit during an opened discussion isn't respectful of the fact that there is now a dispute, however minor. But fine, let's not call it "forcing". IMO there's no such thing as "manufactured" WP:Discussion; it's right there in WP:Dispute resolution. Per WP:BRD you added something Boldly, it was Reverted, and now we Discuss. It wasn't any sort of vandalism, and there's just no need to defy anybody, much less warn. Srsly: see WP:TIGERS. Once a contested edit is discussed in Talk, discussion in kind is strongly encouraged by the WP:Five pillars (the part about WP:cooperation and WP:civil discussion). Next, the disputed edit mentioned a living person and entire arm of government which literally weren't mentioned in the cited source - that seems like undue emphasis to me. Finally, just because somebody writes something is no guarantee that it will be considered either necessary or sufficient to add to an article; even if a source is reliable, the cited fact might not be relevant or important. Please note that I do find it interesting and very nearly inclusion-worthy that Idiocracy has, as part of its legacy, become a meme/focal-point for discussion/fears of the film's projected future dystopia. I do not think that there are deep enough discussions, in a sufficient quantity of reliable-enough sources, to justify addition of this fact to the article itself yet. I'd like to see supporting sources accumulate here in Talk before being added to the article.--Lexein (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, he's just slapped me with a personal attack, so...Boomshadow talk contribs 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36, other than the fact that you don't like the column, and your unjust labeling of the author as "my girl Daum," and calling my comment a rant, even though it is indeed a fact cited by multiple sources that politicians during the 2008 election and since have blatantly fumbled current events and political facts that they should need to know to do their jobs, all you have is the obvious fact that you don't like what the column says. That is NOT enough to apply WP:UNDUE because your viewpoint is clearly NOT a balanced one. At this point, neither is mine, so I'm going to step back before making further edits to this talk piece or to the article itself, and I STRONGLY suggest you do the same. However, I believe that opinions expressed about current events using "Idiocracy" as a metaphor are indeed valid because the entire point of the film was that very type of social satire, and that thus, the film has had a lasting effect. I will support this when I am calmer. I don't care if that doesn't jibe with your opinion, because you have gradually ratcheted up your tactless disrespect for dissent. I admit I have lost my tact here, which is why I am pausing FOR NOW. However, I am NOT done.Boomshadow talk contribs 01:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I support your position, Boomshadow, and see that below Niteshift36 is personally abusive towards you. Azx2 16:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In point of fact, it is entirely possible for User:Azx2 to be entirely neutral while missing my response to your personal attacks on me. The two are not mutually exclusive. Now, if either of us knew the other from Adam, you'd have a point, but as usual, not so much. Boomshadow talk contribs 17:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In point of fact, anyone who missed your personal abuse, would not have read the preceding discussion very carefully, especially since it wasn't just a single quote from you. I understand you are desperate for someone to agree with you (it only took 5 months for someone to do it), but try not to make too many excuses for them. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you. Please continue eviscerating the piece until it matches your personal views about the film. That and shouting down anyone who disagrees with you seems to be keeping you busy, so far be it from me to take that away from you. Oh, and you also might want to notice that during that five months I didn't say a word until you went after User:Azx2, and also accused him of not being neutral (because he disagreed with you? 'Cause it's not like either of us knows the other...) Boomshadow talk contribs 04:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hyperbole much? I didn't "go after him". I pointed out that he complained about my "attack" while ignoring yours. I don't care if he disagreed, only that he's one-sided. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Why are you two still talking about this? Boomshadow's edit is not a good one, has been reverted and has not been reinstated. As far as the personal attacks.. why don't you both just take it back to the elementary school playground? Or, you can both just be adults, agree to disagree and just not talk to one another again unless you have to discuss an edit you are both working on in a reasonable adult manner? This discussion is not productive here. Centerone (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You're really going to get your panties all twisted over "your girl Daum"? Wow. You are a sensitive one, aren't you? And yeah, I called it a rant. So what? For someone who claims to have "told me off" and told me to "go to hell" to whine about an alleged personal attack is comical. Get a grip. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with either the op-ed piece or how we worded our coverage of it in reference to this article except for us mentioning Palin, specifically, since she's not mentioned by name in the op-ed. In fact Bachman is the only real-world politician mentioned by name (the others are only noted by their notable snafus) but she's mentioned in a hyperbolic statement that isn't relevant to our purposes. Our mention was succinct and other than that problem, maintained a neutral view in describing the content of the ref.

I say restore the text but that we should remove such as Sarah Palin, and the US Congress as seen in the diff. Also, covering the WorldNetDaily article she mentions in the op-ed might not be a bad idea, since the author of that shares similar concerns but for different reasons. For that matter, there's a lot of stuff out there we could use to expand the analysis section to include the more real-world comparisons that were made about the film. Right now we have a teeny paragraph noting that dystopian fiction is nothing new. We all know there's tons of better stuff out there (this op-ed being one of them) that discusses this film and its themes. Millahnna (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • To reinterate my inital concern: This op-ed piece came out years after the film. It wasn't really a piece about the film at all. It was a piece about the authors personal political views and she merely used the movie to illustrate her personal opinions. Had this been a matter of her writing about how the movie shaped her political views, that would be a more valid argument to me. This does nothing to explain the movie, plot or production. It simply serves to explain the authors political POV. In the end, it's like inserting a political rant into the article on chocolate chip cookies because the author used a cookie jar analogy. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed (for reasons stated here and here) that this particular quote does not belong, even as suggested above by Millahnna. On the other hand, expansion of sources significantly discussing the film itself and this particular kind of dystopia in real life, philosophy, and politics, is worth further discussion and eventual inclusion. --Lexein (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That this was not a contemporary review is completely irrelevant in a section titled "analysis". On articles for older films this has been a concern (and I've seen some break "critical response" into two sections; one for more recent reviews and one for contemporary reviews). But this op-ed was not a critical review of the film and the fact that it was written years later does not change the fact that it provides analysis of the themes in the film, albeit briefly.
I'd agree, however, that she discusses the film itself so little that her piece shouldn't be the major portion of anything as we try to sum up points made about those themes. It would provide and additional footnote to a larger paragraph, I would imagine. "While some critics noted blah blah education blah blah,[1 (footnote to the literally dozens of articles out there talking about education and this film)], and others commented on the blah blah stupid people out-breeding blah blah [2 footnote to the literally hundreds of articles out there discussing that one, because duh], still others compared the behavior of the future politicians to our own.[1 footnote to Daum's op-ed] [2 footnote to WorldNetDaily article she mentions]." Or something like that anyway.
For the record, I don't actually know if that WND article is thematically connected to her point that specifically (psyching myself out to go look it up, I really have issues with that site), but since it seemed he had similar concerns for opposite reasons based on her interpretation, I like the idea of including his view if WND is an ok source given how fringe they are. They might not be ok for a lot of things but I'd think in this context they might be a good one to include and should be fine. If we ever get that far, I'll probably ask the smarter than me peeps over at the film project, just to make sure. I wish I had more time... Expanding this to be an actual analysis section is right up my alley. Millahnna (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Upgrayedd

I support the hyphenated spelling U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D in the synopsis, because that's how the character "spells it". Since it's spelled Upgrayedd in the official documentation for the film and everywhere else it's been reported, the non-hyphenate is correct everywhere else. --Lexein 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Terry Crews (Upgrayedd)...wants to do a spin-off? hmmmm, methinks he be drinkin' a tadd bit too much Brawndo!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.248.127 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry Crews wasn't Upgrayedd, he was President Camacho. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 06:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Idiocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

New Idiocracy doings.

'Idiocracy' Team Ready Anti-Donald Trump Campaign Ads: Terry Crews to reprise role of President Camacho if granted permission by Fox,
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/idiocracy-team-ready-anti-donald-trump-campaign-ads-20160603

""I never expected #idiocracy to become a documentary so soon," Cohen wrote in February. . ."

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Idiocracy/Archive_1&oldid=1064536736"