Talk:The Last Mimzy

Roger Waters Song

I am having difficulty accessing the Roger Waters mp3 file.

Please discuss only the film on this page.  Jim Dunning  talk  :  19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, that seems important. What Roger Waters song is featured in the movie? --In Defense of the Artist 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the Soundtrack section of the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Right...it doesn't ring any bells. Isn't an mp3 sample of the song appropriate on this page? --In Defense of the Artist 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why (especially since it doesn't ring any bells)?02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimDunning (talk • contribs)

His song "Hello (I Love You)" was played during the movie when the kids were on the beach and Noah started hearing sounds from everywhere after he put the shell to his ear. We hear the song when the camera focuses on his mother reading a book with her headphones on (she's listening to the song.) Also on the DVD there is a special feature about the behind the scenes of the recording of the song with him and the little girl who played Emma. I think it was also played during the end credits but I'm not sure (it's been a while since I've seen it, lol) So where is this link to the mp3?? Ospinad 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think a Roger Waters's song will have GDFL availability.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We could put a sample of the song, many pages do it (like here) but I've never been able to get the .ogg files to work. Or we can put a link to where someone can listen to the song. Ospinad 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article reformat

Much of the content of the article has been rearranged to make it more encyclopedic and conform with styles of other film articles. Also, PR-appearing material has been removed. The relevant tags have been removed and the article has been upgraded from a stub. Irrelevant content has been deleted.

The Lead still needs much work, but may have to wait for critical response and input from viewers now that the film's been released. Although the content has been moved around, most of it still needs some good copy editing within each section to improve it.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Alain Bielik (2007-03-23). "The Last Mimzy: Magical Reality VFX". VFXWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hope this is of some use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Differences between story and film

I hate when this section is added to articles — it usually devolves into trivial trivia. I edited the initial entry and left the accurate content, however, it would be better to remove the section as it currently exists. It would be far more interesting to mention the plot and thematic differences between the two stories. They appear to be significant. For example, Padgett focuses on the growing gulf between loving (but busy) parents and their evolving children, which doesn't end happily. On the other hand (although I haven't had a chance to see the movie), I understand it is a feel-good family affair with an ending of hope for the future.

Maybe someone can start finding contrasting reviews of both works and begin a meaty section.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the point should be made that the movie reverses the tone and meaning of the original story. In the pseudonymic Padgett's original, the toys are teaching devices designed to orient the children of the future to n-dimensional space. Somehow, some of these devices have been sent back in time, one to Alice Liddell in the 1800s, another to the children in the story. In learning the toys' lessons, the children become something Other -- inhuman, in other words. Having learned their lessons, they leave their parents behind forever as they enter n-dimensional space. It's a crushingly sad ending. The redemptive ending (in which the children save the future from a spritual/ecological crisis, while remaining behind, in our time) is in another dimension entirely from the story. It may be touching and sweet, but it's a 180 degree turn from the original. This should be mentioned.

Meaning no disrespect to any of the erudite contributors here, it seems the strict constructionist interpretation of "original research" by which this fact isn't mentioned is going too far. I.e.: The "Planet of the Apes" was Earth in the movie: it was a planet orbiting Beetlegeuse in the book. That's not an inference: it's a verifiable fact. Is it really necessary to reference a quote from "Le Canard enchaîné" to mention this fact on Wikipedia?

03-28-2007 synopsis revision

The Synopsis section should briefly recount the events of the film's story in the order they unfold. The revision by User:Jpittman on 03-28-2007, by organizing it into a description of the toys, children's abilities, and interactions departs from this model, and probably goes into more detail that is desirable for a synopsis.

There's some good information there, however, so the revision is saved below. This information should be mined and rearranged into film story order, but condensed, leaving only what is pertinent to a high-level description of the plot.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Toys

In the film, the toys arrive in a box washed in from the ocean by the beach nearby the family's beach house in the pacific northwest. When Emma spots the box, her brother Noah fetches it. The two of them open the box and only some of the toys are revealed at this time.

Although only some of the toys are mentioned by name, many of them appear to the children as somewhat normal objects.

There are several rocks that look like geodes "spinners" that produce an atomizing field when Emma spins them and a small crystal quadrilateral that has lines all through it and seems to be charged somehow. Noah becomes very possessive of this crystal. The children hide the items they found until they are "caught" by their mother. At this point, Noah shows it to his mother who sees it as nothing but a piece of rock. Still facinated by it, Noah clutches it for much of the rest of the film.

Overnight, Emma wakes up and goes under Noah's bed and takes out the box. The box opens and reveals even more items. They include a strange blob as well as what appears to be a stuffed bunny, Mimzy. Mimzy becomes Emma's toy, although Noah gets angry when he wakes up and finds that Emma has 'stolen' his toys. He takes them all back except the bunny rabbit which immediately begins 'talking' to Emma.

Toward the middle of the film, two of the toys begin to interact. The organic blob and the green crystal are attracted together. When Noah cannot keep them separated they are pulled together and result in a new toy which looks like a blue blob. However, it is used as the power source for the time travel mechanism to return Mimzy home at the end of the film.

Abilities

Over time, both children become smarter and develop increased intelligence. They also develop abilities that relate to higher levels of brain activity and psi-related phenomena.

Over the course of the film, Emma learns to control matter with her mind. She learns to spin some of the toys and also is able to move sugar and levitate both using only her mind.

Noah learns communication with arthropods via certain frequencies of sound. He learns this, presumably from a toy shell shaped like a conch which he puts to. This causes him to build a project with spiders which his science teacher is amazed at. He predicts that Noah will win the national science fair which is a major turning point because Noah is shown to not do well in school early on in the film.

Noah also learns to teleport objects. He learns or develops this by seeing the world differently through his interaction with the green crystal that reveals geometric equivalents of ley lines which connect all matter.

Although both children are special, Emma is beyond Noah. We see a bit of sibling rivalry between them as brother and sister, but this pronouncement is definite as the film moves on.

Outside Interactions

Later in the film, the children are taken for tests. This is largely a result of Emma's dramatic display of psychokenesis when asked to pass the sugar. The children are tested and we learn that Emma's mind is continuing to grow, whereas medical science would not expect it to. In fact, during medical tests, Emma's brain is shown to be developing and changing too fast to even be measured. Whereas most humans have a decreased level of activitiy as they age, Emma's brain continues to evolve and grow every minute.

When Noah leaves curious mandalas drawn on his tests at school, his science teacher begins to research along with his fiance. Noah's science teacher, Larry White, has been having dreams since a trip he and his fiance took to Tibet. When Larry's girlfriend examines Noah's hand, she finds nothing extraordinary but Emma's reveals a marking which, according to the studying she did in Tibet, marks Emma as special and pure.

Larry tells their parents that they seem to have surpassed genius level. And upon hearing that Emma has begun psychokenesis, Noah and Emma's parents, too, realize something extraordinary is happening. At Larry's request, the children are taken for tests. From the tests, we learn that Emma's mind is continuing to grow, whereas medical science would not expect it to. In fact, during medical tests, Emma's brain is shown to be developing and changing too fast to even be measured. Whereas most humans have a decreased level of activitiy as they age, Emma's brain continues to evolve and grow every minute.

Emma, the younger of the two, reveals that one of the toys, a stuffed toy rabbit, is named Mimzy and that “she teaches me things.” As Emma’s parents becomes increasingly frightened, the Federal Bureau of Investigation traces a power surge, which had caused a large blackout, to Emma's home. The surge had been caused by the merging of Noah's crystal with the organic blob. The family are captured and held. Mimzy is analyzed using a superpowered electron microscope and found to be an advanced form of artificial life, with Intel components.

Emma reveals via telepathy that Mimzy has brought a message from humanity's future, wherein pollution has nearly destroyed the world. To counteract the pollution, which is suggested to be psychic as well as physical, many such rabbits as Mimzy were sent to the past to gather incorrupt DNA. Mimzy is the last of her kind, and the only one remaining. It is also revealed that Mimzy is itself made from semi-organic, futuristic nanotechnology.

The children must use the "toys" to return Mimzy to the future, where a scientist will use the DNA to stop the pollutants from causing mass destruction in Mimzy's time of origin. When this is done, humans become more integrated into the natural world, gaining love, wisdom, stronger psi, and a strong sense of community. Emma, whose tear carried the DNA via Mimzy, is viewed by schoolteachers of the future as the "mother" of all the present generations.

Plot synopsis

I've significantly reduced the plot synopsis copy, trying to bring it down to a reasonable length. After reviewing the result, it seems that more paring is needed. Anyone else agree? —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agree, but nice work! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To comply with WP standards, the Plot section needs to be trimmed down by a third or more (it's at 900 words and should be around 600). I understand why the {{plot}} tag is there, but it's misleading by placing an emphasis on copyvio (irrelevant in this case) and is inexactly applied to the issue at hand. There is nothing wrong with the approach (I think the phrase "contextualise the fictional nature of the work" is inappropriate here, as is the link to "writing about fiction": it conforms to WikiProject Films/Style guidelines except for length).

I'm tempted to remove the tag, but it might be simpler for someone to first edit the length down ASAP and then remove it. I'd do more, but I haven't seen the movie. Volunteers, anyone? —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the plot tag on. I think it's unfortunate that the plot tag includes a copyright violation possibility. I complained at the time this was added that it would become a distraction from the real business of what the tag is supposed to achieve. Please leave the tag until it is fixed, and maybe I'll complain again... Notinasnaid 09:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The copyright warning is no longer there, allowing us to focus on the rest of it. Thanks! Notinasnaid 10:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hills Have Eyes 2

I really do think this anecdote at the bottom of the page is not noteable. For example, should I go off to the page on Underworld and relate the trivia that the projector at the Niles, OH branch of Regal Cinema ate the film, forcing the theater to give all attendants a free pass to a different showing? No. This is a theater error and has nothing directly to do with The Last Mimzy. It was simply one of the two films a theater mixed up. Angel the Techrat 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Spiders

Switched "spiders" back to "arthropods". Just finished watching the movie and the boy talked to non-spider arthropods in the FBI facility to avoid the camera during their escape.

dk4 03:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Noah also constrolled spiders quite more specifically when he controlled cockroaches. Which being in insecta, are arthropods. However, it's likely to presume that they had no intentions that he could control anything else than the coloquial term "bug". This movie is lacking so much actual scientific basis on other grounds, I don't see a need here to complicate this issue. --Puellanivis 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

description of toys

Does anybody else think it would be a good idea to include a separate section that lists and describes the toys in a little detail? I think there used to be something like that in this article but because was in the "plot" section it was taken out as not being necessary to tell the story. I thought there could still be a separate section here to describe them. Ospinad 19:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ospinad, I'm sorry I didn't see this suggestion earlier -- I was on WikiBreak, otherwise I would have responded before someone put the toy list in the article. I'm not sure what the value of the list is. I consciously left that much detail out of the Plot section specifically because the MoS style guidelines for fiction articles recommend against it. Placing this level of detail under a different heading is effectively an end-run around the guidelines.

The Toys section is over three-quarters the length of the Plot section. How can that much information about the toys be that important to the article? For example, to include, "Like many toy rabbits, she has an anthropomorphic bodily structure, distinguished by its upright stance and forward-facing head. On her navel is a spiralling mark" contributes to article-bloat, something we all strive against. Just saying Mimzy appears to be a toy rabbit should be enough description. Also, statements such as, "Noah does not have these, possibly because he cannot hear Mimzy speak, and so is more skeptical" come off as WP:OR, and shouldn't be included.

I likened it to Trivia because of its similar nature: (where appropriate) it is information that should be merged into other parts of the article. You said, "The list of toys is NOT nonencyclopedic anymore than the list of actors is trivia. It has to do with the movie and it helps with understanding the plot better." I respectfully disagree with the assessment that the toys are on par with the actors: a description of characters and actors is a standard section in WP movie articles, and, in most movies, the characters are more important to story development than the props. My question at this point is, how does describing the devices in this much detail "[help] with understanding the plot better"? Why isn't it enough that the reader knows that they are futuristic devices that the children treat as toys and are used collectively to return Mimzy to the future?
Jim Dunning | talk 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. I'm sorry if I came off a little confrontational in my edit summary. It was sort of a knee-jerk reaction that comes from dealing with too many impulsive deletionists. Let me try and explain why I did what I did a little more calmly and rationally. I don't believe that having a section for a list of the toys is "effectively an end-run around the guidelines" concerning the plot section because this section doesn't necessarily have to include details about the plot to just describe the toys. I agree that it might look like that the way it is but that doesn't mean that it can't be reworded. Just because it's not perfect now doesn't mean that the idea of having that section is a bad one. For example, many articles on movies (and especially articles on tv shows) have sections describing the characters, which is completely separate from the plot sections. They aren't breaking guidelines by including them. You said...

"...a description of characters and actors is a standard section in WP movie articles, and, in most movies, the characters are more important to story development than the props."

That's true. In MOST movies that's true. I don't believe it's true for this movie. For one thing these weren't "typical" toys. They were from the future, yes, but they were pretty much unlike anything we've seen in a movie before. Just saying that "they found toys from the future on the beach" doesn't give us much of an idea of what they were like. Trivia sections are lists of loosely related information. This section may be in list form but that doesn't make it "trivial" because they are not "loosely related". That's why I likened it to cast sections because although they are also usually in the form of a list too that doesn't make them trivial. The fact that most movie articles have sections on actors and not on "toys from the future", or even on a section of props in general, is not the point. In this movie they were important and having a description of them helps to understand the movie better. But at the same time, I'm not saying that these toys were more important than the characters. Just that they were important enough to deserve their own section. For example, in an older version of this article the green crystal quadrilateral described the geometric designs on it as being a representation of ley lines. While I was watching the movie I was fascinated by those scenes but I had no idea what I was looking at. I had never heard of ley lines and learned a lot about them from the article. Now that link is gone.

"Why isn't it enough that the reader knows that they are futuristic devices that the children treat as toys and are used collectively to return Mimzy to the future?"

What is "enough"? What's enough depends on what one wants or what is needed to make one happy. I realize that the bottom line is that we are just arguing over our differing opinions. One could say that this article can be reduced to the statement, "This movie is about a couple of kids who find a box of toys from the future" and say that should be "enough" but that would just be one person's opinion. Ospinad 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ospinad, I take your point and so I'm going to focus on your statement, "I don't believe it's true for this movie. For one thing these weren't "typical" toys. They were from the future, yes, but they were pretty much unlike anything we've seen in a movie before." (italics added). You believe it's important that this much detail about the toys should be in the article. I understand that, but since this is WP, it has to be a third-party verifiable source that believes so, not just you (or me, for that matter). I agree that there are some aspects of films that are worth special mention; special effects comes to mind, for example. That's why I'm not surprised when there is a separate section about special effects in the 2001: A Space Odyssey film article. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a focus on the liquid metal CGI in Terminator 2 (although there isn't). However, I haven't seen a notable critic or industry article draw special attention to the toys in TLM. If there are such references, then I wouldn't object to an expansion on the toys.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I suggest that if there is going to be a description of the toys, that they be placed in some sort of context. That is, an overview explaining why they are being detailed in this article should be included (citing sources, of course). That might explain why I was likening it to a trivia list.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all I want to thank you for cleaning up my changes to the toy section (instead of just deleting it) I know I'm not the best writer. But I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. Do you want sources for the descriptions of the toys themselves or sources explaining why the toys were important enough to the movie to deserve their own section in this article? I thought citing sources was for showing that the information in the article was true, I didn't know that we had to cite sources to explain why certain sections are included in the article. For example, do we cite sources when listing the actors in the movie to show that they were actually in the movie or do we also have to site sources explaining why there's a cast section in this article in the first place? Or using your example, is there a source explaining why 2001 has a separate section for the special effects or is one needed only to verify what's said in that section? (now that I'm looking at it, I don't see anything in that section sourced, maybe I should just remove it?) and the next section on the "Deleted Scenes" has sources on what some of the deleted scenes were but not on why there's a deleted scenes section in the article in the first place... so what should we do? Ospinad 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The toys are the MacGuffins of the film; their functions are key elements of the plot. As the film progresses, it turns out each toy has a specific function, and each is vital to the success of the Mimzy's mission to the past. Thus, I consider the list of toys both notable and encyclopedic; that is, as notable as the movie itself.

If you're worried about the potential for abuse of Wikipedia for marketing purposes, don't worry. There exist only two available merchandise-toys based on the film: a Mimzy talking plush, and an Emma doll with a smaller Mimzy plush. Both are collectible dolls, not toys; the Mimzy had a limited run of 2000, and the Emma with smaller Mimzy had a run of 500. There are no "spinner rocks" or "blue blobs" or "green crystals" associated thus.

As far as citations go, this list currently lists only the functions of the toys as seen in the film. (I know; I finished watching it less than a half-hour ago.) Now, if it described the manner in which the wormholes worked, with detailed mathematics, that would be original research. The only thing I see here that might fit that description is "ley lines", since that term is not specifically used in the film. However, I will admit that "he can see ley lines" was my first thought when Noah saw the underlying geometry of space-time that enabled him to create wormholes with his mind. That interpretation is, I feel, consistent with the New-Age / Eastern Mysticism themes that IMHO underlie the film.

So I say, keep the list of toys as-is. --BlueNight (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

errors?

Should we include mistakes? The ferry to 'Whibdey' leaves Seattle, but no such ferry route exists. There is a ferry from Mukilteo to Clinton, which is on Whidbey Island. I am sure this cheat was for the scenic skyline of Seattle, which is much more recognizable than the Mukilteo skyline (grin). mercator79 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it: it falls into the realm of "artistic license" and doesn't affect the story in any way. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a WP article about the latest Die Hard film to point out that it takes John McClane only 5 minutes to get from West Virginia to Baltimore by helicopter (fortunately, it doesn't).
Jim Dunning | talk 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing:

I don’t know how many errors there is in this movie but one pretty funny part is when the father goes in his son’s room to talk to him, when he walks in the boy has socks on and his feet are cross a certain way, then when the dad sits next to the boy the boys wearing no socks? Lol pretty funny but I believe that is a editing error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.87.86 (talk) 03:01, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Missing citations and original research issues

I flagged the Development section requesting someone find references for the info there (I'll work on that as I find time). I also flagged the Differences section since it appears to be the (good faith) personal observations of an editor. Someone should see if if we can find some third-party sources for the information (although I think it should be rolled into the Development section — I hate "Differences between novel and film" sections). I'm doing this so we can get the article upgraded to B-Class some time soon.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why a "Plot Differences" section needs sources. Wikipedia clearly states that plot sections don't need to be cited so why would a "plot differences" section need to be? Ospinad 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Plot summary section is an accepted step into the area of WP:OR; it is tolerated as long as it stays with objective description verifiable by watching the film. Once you start comparing source material and adaptations, it is accepted that we are venturing into Original Research territory. Here are some examples of interpretation that fall into OR:

• "There are a number of substantial differences between the film and the story upon which it is based. Most notably, the short story takes place . . . .": The contributor is making the assessment that the differences are "substantial" (as well as saying, "Most notably"). This is the editor's assessment, not a credible third-party's.
• "The movie implies that ancient Buddhist mythology may also be linked to similar communications from the future.": Another example of a part of the movie that isn't explicitly stated ("implies"). Again, the WP editor is making the call, not someone else in a credible, published analysis.

These are just two examples.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

These aren't original research issues, they are NPOV issues, and they are very easy to fix. All you need to do is remove the word "substantial" and change "most notably" to "one is" to make the statement more neutral and less of an opinion. And you are right, that the movie only "implied" Buddhist mythology is linked to communications from the future is only someone's opinion, one that is wrong, because the movie did show that there was a connection which would be obvious to anyone who saw the movie. And Plot summaries aren't an "acceptable step into OR", they are not OR at all simply because of the fact that they are based on something that has already been published. They don't need to be cited because "It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information" as it says here. --Ospinad 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this example then. The article currently states, "There are a number of substantial differences between the film and the story upon which it is based. Most notably, the short story takes place in two different time periods simultaneously, the far future and the 'present day' of the 1940s . . . . Also, there is no ecological component to the short story, whereas much of the film's plot revolves around ecology." I, on another hand don't see these as "substantial". In fact, I think the short story focuses on a theme of parent estrangement from children growing up and away from them (with the effect of the "toys" on the children's intelligence as a plot device to emphasize the gulf). This results in a sad, poignant, almost tragic tone to the story. The film focuses on a mission to rescue Earth from an ecologically catastrophic future: it is an adventure story in which the "toys" enable the children to evolve into a new human with powers that allow them to effect the rescue and live harmoniously with nature. To me, these are representative of the most substantial differences between the two works. Also, I'm not sure how the handling of the time changes is substantial (or even "different"): not to mince words, but having two different time periods be "simultaneous" is an oxymoron (although, I know what the contributor means); however, the short story handles three time periods "simultaneously", too, and the only difference is that Padgett spends a little more time in the far future; the difference is a matter of a small degree.

My point here, however, is that both of these positions are original research, both mine and the other editor's; whose is better, more cogent or significant is irrelevant. Neither can be included in the article; what I think about the adaptation changes doesn't matter. If the analysis or observation was that of a credible third-party critic, it could be (and should be) included, but it isn't. I could even find critical analyses of the short story and the film that make these same observations independently, but I couldn't make the comparison in the article unless I was referencing an analysis by a critic that had made the actual comparison already. Frustrating at times, but that's WP.

Ideally, locating an article or interview where the producer, screenwriter or director discusses the adaptation process, identifying differences and the reasons for making the changes, would be great.

I understand your point about NPOV and removing the "incriminating" words, but then that just raises the issue of when do you stop listing differences (e.g. do I list the Lewis Carroll thing or not; how about the number and type of toys in each or not; that the toys were sent back in one for an important world-saving reason or just because the time travel scientist's son was a messy kid or not?). Without including notability assessments (not ours though), the list of differences would be endless and devolve into trivia. Find someone else's analysis. Actually, the two stories are so different I think it would be easier to quantify the similarities rather than the differences: (1) both focus on a family with two children whose (2) intellectual capabilities are augmented by machines sent from the future. Those two things are really the only things that are similar about the works. Period. lol
Jim Dunning | talk 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, for such a smart guy I can't believe you can't understand something so simple. What you think about the differences between the story and the film is your opinion, what the differences are are not your opinion. Which differences you think are "substantial" is POV but just listing the differences isn't. The same way that saying how much you liked the movie is OR but just saying what the movie was about is not.

You mentioned two of the differences listed in the section, one of which was "there is no ecological component to the short story, whereas much of the film's plot revolves around ecology," and then said that you, "don't see these as 'substantial'." Then you went on to say how the short story focused on parent/child estrangement while the movie focused on "a mission to rescue Earth from an ecologically catastrophic future," and that "To me, these are representative of the most substantial differences between the two works." Umm, how is what you said any different than the example you gave? Other than your version being more fleshed out you are basically saying the same thing, that one of the main differences is that the film focused on trying to avoid an ecological disaster in the future whereas the short story didn't. Saying what the short story did focus on doesn't really change what you are saying. That this was one of the most substantial differences.

But regardless! What you or I or anybody else thinks was the most substantial difference is irrelevant and shouldn't be allowed in the article because it is POV. Saying that this was one of the differences is not. --Ospinad 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability. Notability only applies to article topics not to the content in articles. If you want to change the section to "plot similarities" instead of "plot differences" because you think there are less similarites then I wouldn't be against it. Maybe we can compromise and call it "differences and similarities between the film and short story." I can't really say which will be easier because I haven't read the story. All I was trying to do was say that listing the differences between the plots wouldn't be original research, POV can be easily avoided with better wording and that not each difference should have to pass the notability guidelines. --Ospinad 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Not sure what I did to warrant such a response, but please accept my apologies for whatever insult or injury I unintentionally caused. My comments were offered in good faith and were not intended as criticisms of the author(s) of the contributions.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing differences in plots is considered original research. You're right in a way: it doesn't have to be an "opinion", but such a comparison is an analysis by a WP editor if it isn't something obtained and cited from a third-party source. "Wikipedia should not be the original source for new research, ideas, interpretations, or analyses." "The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you." And Synthesis of published material explains why we can't even compare indirectly related third-party sources.

I understand your perspective, but while objectively describing the main points of the plot is okay, comparing two plot lines isn't. This isn't just my interpretation, but that of a number of experienced WP film article editors (see the comments of other editors in a similar discussion for the The Prestige article; you will have to hunt a bit to locate them in the thread). And please keep in mind that I am not attacking you, just disagreeing with some of your views.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you either it's just that it bothers me when you keep citing policy incorrectly and when you don't respond to my points. You quoted this, "Wikipedia should not be the original source for new research, ideas, interpretations, or analyses." but that's not exactly what WP:OR says, is it? Not only is "analyses" a very vague word but actual policy says, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Listing the differences between the plots of two works of art is not a "synthesis of published material" because it is not "making an argument" or "advancing a posistion." I think you are being rediculously strict with the inclusion of content in this article. I don't think you are doing this so you can get this article rated B-class, I think you are doing this because you just personally hate "Differences between novel and film" sections. You also argue that some things are not notable enough to be included when WP:N clearly states that notability is not meant to limit the content of articles, only which topics get their own articles. And you argue that some things are too trivial to be included (same argument, different wording) when the policy on trivia clearly states "This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not — only how it is organized." --Ospinad 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're taking this so personally, but in an attempt to reduce the irritability factor I will keep words to a minimum and try not to be "rediculous" any longer. Comparing the stories requires analysis ("an evaluation of the similarities and differences of two (or more) things"), or an evaluation (i.e. placing values on plot points and the comparisons themselves). I can guarantee that you and I will come up with significantly differing lists of similarities and differences (especially since I have read the short story and seen the film and you apparently haven't). WP editors therefore cannot perform an analysis or evaluation; thus, the only way such a comparison can be included in the article is by citing a credible third-party's comparison. Feel free to solicit the opinions of other editors by making a request at the films' project page: that would be an excellent way to gain consensus on this.

As to the notability issue, I haven't bothered to address it because it isn't notable enough for me to take the time up to now. I will say, however, that including a factoid like, "Noah was wearing a red shirt while he and Emma stared at the geode under the bed," is an example of something not notable enough to take up copy space in the article. Many others will agree, so there is undoubtedly a "notability" threshold.

As for my motives, you have no way of knowing what they are other than what I say, so please do as I have done for you and assume good faith on my part. I will state for the record that my primary motive on this issue is to help produce the best encyclopedic article about this movie I can. If you wish to call me a liar or put thoughts in my head, you are certainly free to do so, but I suggest you set the emotions aside (as long as I refrain from insulting you, which I can guarantee I won't intentionally do). Look, get some other viewpoints on this and see what happens.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried what you said and asked for input from others at WP:OR even though I only got one response, they seemed to agree with me, that a simple comarison doesn't qualify as original research, as long as common sense is used. But it doesn't matter because you obviously own this article and I just don't care anymore. Ospinad 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Last Mimzy.jpg

Image:The Last Mimzy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Epigenetics in Plot

I see the word "epigenetics" has been added to the article, replacing the statement that pollution has nearly destroyed the world with pollution has corrupted humanity's epigenetics. I can't remember the film details, so does this accurately describe the situation? Is epigenetics the appropriate word to use, or is it too specific?
Jim Dunning | talk 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Epigenetics would be the proper word to describe what the movie discusses, however, the movie itself gives as rational simply "genetics" and the direct DNA corruption from pollutants. It's rather a bit like a propaganda film for new-age thoughts, rather than any true scientific basis. As such, the New-agey people in the movie accurately reflect new-age beliefs in modern day... namely quite divergent from reality as known by science. --Puellanivis 07:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast section rewrite

Ideally, the Cast section should be written as prose rather the the current table. I reformatted it in that direction, but it needs some more work. I can't remember specifics about a couple of the characters, so it would be great if someone could add just a few brief details for them. Also, I count up at least six Academy Award winners amongst the cast and crew. I mentioned this, but it's WP:OR unless someone can locate a verifiable reference that mentions it (other than six, separate cites, however). I've flagged it as needing a cite and it will go away if none can be found.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses

I wish the contrast between the two types of responses could be amplified. I wish I could understand it too. People who interpret the film scientifically find it has originality and depth; but people who view it as entertainment say it is 'lightweight' compared to ET. People who find it 'lightweight' also find it confusing, and say they do not understand why the mimzy has appeared, what the children are meant to do. The relation between genetic degradation, time travel, pollution, politics, nanotechnology and religion being vividly explored in Mimzy is lightweight compared to flying bicycles in ET, according to a mainstream school of thought. Sorry I don't have particular references, but I would like to see a longer Response section to help me understand how the same film can generate such divergent responses. 82.26.84.35 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I have got 2 references, maybe someone with some Wikipedia expertise can put this in.

What one reviewer considers deep, serious and important, another reviewer thinks is banal. Michael Orton of LA Times thinks scientific interpretations of ancient Tibeten mandalas are interesting, but disparages an interaction between a teacher and student: "Says one child, 'why don't they stop it?' to which the teacher replies 'They is all of us.' Best not to look too deeply into the Last Mimzy." Whereas a Helium movie review is deeply impressed with the very same teacher-student interaction: "A lecture on how our genetic code might be undergoing serious damage via pollutants ends with one student asking why don't they stop it. 'Who's they?' responds the teacher." but views the prospect of rescue through advancing computer science as a childish "But there the caution ends and a pretty much unrelated adventure begins." 82.26.84.35 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you have enough "Wikipedia expertise" to put this in yourself; welcome to WP and thanks for taking an interest in this article. Initially, I thought you were referring to specific references in the Response section of the article, but I see you're actually trying to sort out a number of comments made by reviewers in general (which may or may not have been considered for the article). I read the Helium review you mentioned, but I couldn't find the Orton review, but based on what you quoted, it appears both reviewers are actually in agreement. My take is that both are initially encouraged (impressed?) with the potential depth of the teacher/student dialogue (a "cautionary tale" story in the making), but are then disappointed by the ensuing events that make the film pretty much a run-of-the-mill adventure sequence that doesn't seem much related to the beginning of the story.

There have been comparisons to ET, and you ask why the apparently pithy dialogue in Mimzy shouldn't make it more deserving of praise than the seemingly puerile banter of ET. It's not the words so much that determine the success and gravity of the two stories, but the overall writing, acting and directing. Critics and audiences found Mimzy confusing and unsatisfying because too many ideas and events were jumbled together and left wanting of meaning or explanation; also, the emotional impact was rather flat. As for ET: yes, it depends heavily on similar chase scenes and children vs. adults themes, but very few can deny that the performances and directing make the line "I'll be right here" one of the most emotion-laden and effective in cinema history; thus the film is more highly rated than Mimzy.

The reviews cited in the Response section were selected to provide a balanced and representative picture of the overall reception. If they need adjustment, feel free to do so, or discuss it further here.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jim 82.26.90.36 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a necessary counterpoint to the information presented above. General scientific knowledge and known laws of psychics disagree fundamentally to the points posited by the original commenter. If they wish to express a view point that the movie is scientifically sound, then evidence can be presented to rebut that argument. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall I found the movie to be lighthearted and good entertainment, however, interpreting the movie scientifically, I have to say that a lot of what they're talking about is pretty bogus.

• Pollution directly causing irretrievable DNA damage? (Some kinds of pollution do cause cancer, and we're directly eliminating them because they cause immediate health impacts. No need to wait thousands or millions of years to have it "accumulate")
• Said DNA damage being carried down through reproduction? (Damaging DNA would not procreate, and thus not propogate through generations.)
• The idea that people wouldn't stop cancerous pollution? (Yes, there are companies that do this, and they're fined heavily for putting the population at direct risk.)
• That given the technology to collect the genetic information from a single tear, and then extract it, and insert it into the next generation of humans... yet, no ability to directly correct DNA damage? (We already have the Human Genome project completed, you would think that someone would have stored a "backup" somewhere. No less, with the Human Genome project, we're discovering which genes cause this or that, if some gene was causing direct damage by turning it off, or on, then that gene would have duct tape put over it with a sign "do not touch".)
• That it's basically a scare tactic movie about what might happen if pollution got out of hand. (I seem to recall a lot of movies presenting a "post-WW3" world, that has been destroyed by nuclear weapons. Those films did well because the situation was believable by the public, and not for any "scientific" facts therein. (Think Mad Max))

Why was the story so much better than the movie from a scientific standpoint? Because the book created a science beyond our knowledge, and thus they could really break any scientific rule they wanted, and the kids were learning abilities because they were learning the new science. The movie presents a situation where we're supposed to believe that their actions are reasonably explainable in by our science, and the idea of the movie is more focused on "what humans could do if they just tried", rather than the stories approach of: "this is an entirely new science, it doesn't have to be explainable at all". Which is of course culminated by the end of the story, where the kids leave through a door in a direction that the witness could not conceive of. Over all, the movie was bad science while the story was free to not explain anything, and thus this x-logic has no implications upon our modern science, it's a fictional science, not pseudoscience. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please do not delete material that other members have provided to a talk page, unless there is a very good reason for it. Your edit changing your comment to "Thanks, Jim" reverted out all of this comment, which is a necessary critical point of view of the statements that you make in your comment. On Wikipedia, it is considered extremely rude and inappropriate to simply delete a point of view that conflicts with your own. (This exempt the revert prior to that, which removed the long debate, which was certainly justified.) --Puellanivis (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Copying from Wikipedia

Not directly relavant to this article, but I watched this movie today and realized that part of this movie was copied directly from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Movie_copies_from_Wikipedia_DNA_article Raul654 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mandala

This article is mentioned in Mandala as an example of other uses of the term, because an editor thought it was a notable usage. But a discussion of mandala currently doesn't appear here. Does anyone have thoughts or an opinion or seen citations concerning some mention of how the mandala is used in the film? I don't know much about the film, but it seems if it's notable enough for that article then it would be a notable feature of this one too. Thanks! - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Intersecting isosceles triangle patterns (similar to those which occur inside some traditional Indic or Tibetan mandalas) appear in the effects of several of the future devices, and Noah's doodling of mandalas in his notebook is part of how the science teacher picks up that something different is going on with Noah. Overall, it's more of a visual motif than a vital plot element... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Shatner

I just watched this film and nowhere did I see William Shatner. I don't remember Larry playing poker with anyone; he's a science teacher who lives with his new age girlfriend and the only friend he mentions is a doctor at Northwestern (I believe). The only Google results are sites that have taken their information from this article. I'm removing his name unless someone can show he was in the film. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Last Mimzy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706161000/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms29.html to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms29.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217154248/http://www.mimzy.com:80/ to http://www.mimzy.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)