Talk:Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 theatrical film)

Anita Briem's character

I changed the name of her character from Hanna Ásgeirsson to Hanna Sigurbjörnsdóttir. She is Icelandic, and her father is Sigurbjörn Ásgeirsson, so her name is Sigurbjörnsdóttir. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.204.244 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical or otherwise, the character's name is Ásgeirsson. I've restored it. RossPatterson (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything, my mother has a different last name than me, it does happen you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

3D method

No mention of WHICH 3D method (and, obviously, which type of glasses would be needed) this movie was shot in. From what I have seen, the 3D version uses a form of red/blue with colour, but I don't know enough about the different methods to work out the method 78.86.230.62 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Glasses

This article tends to leave the impression that red/cyan glasses are needed with the DVD. Not true. Magenta/green glasses are to be used. (Perhaps red/cyan works with the Blu-Ray 3D disk.) References: http://www.3dstereo.com/viewmaster/3dg-jce.html and http://www.amazon.com/3D-Glasses-Journey-Center-Earth/dp/B00305LA6U and http://www.ultimate3dheaven.com/jotoceofea3d.html

Also see the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D#Anaglyphic_color_channels where it discusses red/cyan versus magenta/green versus blue/yellow glasses (color channels). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.39.153 (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

RealD

The article now claims that the film uses the Real D Cinema stereoscopic method. However, no citation is provided to back this up, and my own experience at the movie theater strongly suggested that something akin to Infitec technology was used - while the fact that a "Dolby Digital 3D" logo was projected made that quite obvious.

It's true that the article was missing information about the stereoscopy method used... but please, don't fill this sort of voids by making things up, that's not very useful! ;-) LjL (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation Vs New story

This article suggests that the film is an adaptation of the book, however it is not, as the book is a non self-referencing story, while this is another different storyline that is not self referencing and doesn't break the fourth wall. It's simply a new story which builds on the book and revisits many of the same places. It is, essentially, a sequel when looked at in this light, just ithas a twist in that it's given the same title. I think the whole article's prose ought to be altered to reflect this, because right now, the article is deceptive and inaccurate. --139.130.97.94 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, one could still argue that its an adaptation. The plot is very similar. The original book did reference a fictional account of an expedition into the same areas by an Icelander in the Late Middle Ages (forget his name), and this story simply replaces that reference with Verne's story. Anyway, need a professional source for either side of the question, I think. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of previously published stories as a source for films is a well established practice. There are sometimes disputes about crediting the source of the story when the author is still alive or the estate of the author demands royalties. There seems to be no attempt by Jules Vernes estate or other interested parties to demand the film acknowledges its source of inspiration. The concept of "blatant rip-off" is as irrelevant to the Hollywood money making machine,as it is obvious to the general public. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth describing the film as a "loose adaptation" rather than just an "adaptation", but I'll leave that for someone else to decide. As mentioned years ago in the previous comment, that's not something likely to be considered a matter of factual dispute for a public domain source, but it's certainly conceivable that there are reliable sources calling it that. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Unpaid 3d artists

I feel that a section on the unpaid VFX artists should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.201.230 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There used be mention of unpaid VFX, but now it's gone. Any idea why was deleted? This is a very disturbing trend in the industry.76.120.66.57 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Should be put back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.11 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus?

In the article it claims that the large carnivorous dinosaur they meet at the center is a Giganotosaurus. I was under the impression it was a Tyrannosaurus. Who said it was a Giganotosaurus? --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Related to Anita Briem's character name an how it is formed

Johannes Evaldsson was an Icelandic footballer who had Estonian ancestry but to have an Icelandic passport under the law of the time you had to have an Icelandic name. This was not required when Bobby Fischer obtained an Icelandic passport whether the law was changed I do not know but if anyone could find the references they could make two articles better. Thanks. 16:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.110.186 (talk)

I accidentally saved my changes to this article! Can someone un-superscript it please?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.0.188 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The note in the article about how the name should be Hannah Sigurbjörnsdóttir is almost correct - that is the traditional Icelandic way of naming daughters, and nearly all Icelandic women's last names are their fathers' names with "dóttir" appended to it (as opposed to "son" for the males). However, there are a rare few Icelanders that have adopted family names similar to how it's done in the rest of the Western world, and it is possible that Hannah's family had opted to do that at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.214 (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

The only bit of trivia refers to dinosaur drool, DVD special features, and an albino "Gigantosaurus". It would appear that the drool is the title of one of the special features, in which one of the creators tells us they have casually named a model used "Albino Gigantosaurus", but the syntax is so terrible that sense is obscured.173.32.219.250 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Trevor and Hannah's new home?

Well, whoever told the Wikipedian that they bought the new home with the diamond money? To begin with, it seemed that Trevor and Hannah HADN'T moved in together (maybe that's what I got out of it). But most certainly, nobody moves in with a guy after knowing him for 5 days! To suggest that they did, there must be sufficient reference in the movie, which there wasn't. Ratibgreat (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyanis Rosopteryx

We're discussing the possibility of merging Cyanis rosopteryx with this article. The film makes some outlandish (and totally incorrect) claims about this fictional species, so in my opinion the information should be included somewhere. As some others have pointed out, it probably dosn't merit it's own page. The other idea is to merge it with Cyanistes. Any and all input is welcome Heatwaveqc (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is non-notable. Merge it fast, before the Deletionists find it. And find a reliable source for it - Big Screen Science doesn't count, sorry. RossPatterson (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 Hollywood film) → Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 film) – "(2008 Hollywood film)" is the main topic of all 2008 films. Neither Asylum nor TV film is influential enough to be primary. --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NCF -- It should be Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 feature film), if this isn't the primary topic, then it should be disambiguated in a manner whereby the title is unambiguous. Using an ambiguous disambiguator simply makes topics ambiguous. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This page got 80,336 views in the last 90 days compared to 11,412 for the Asylum video and 7,673 for the made-for-TV one. "Film" implies a feature that was shown in a cinema to a paying audience. This is the only one of the three that is an actual film. Kauffner (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose since "Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 film)" is ambiguous. The current setup among the three films is sufficient and does not need to be changed. Kauffner, I disagree with your definition of film. Direct-to-video and television films are recognized as films on Wikipedia and elsewhere. To cite just one example, the Featured Article of the television film Dustbin Baby (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as per Kauffner's stats listed above. It clearly seems to indicate that the hollywood film is the primarytopic and a hatnote can be use to point to the dab. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  This film cannot be considered the primary topic. The book Journey to the Center of the Earth is the only primary topic among all the topics that share this name. The rest of the topics are essentially secondary and need to be disambiguated from each other. If one has to type a disambiguation term (which is a Wikipedia characteristic and not a real-world one) to get to an article, it's obviously not a primary topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As there are (at least) 3 other films called Journey to the Center of the Earth released in 2008. The extra disambig is needed in these cases. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are several movies of the same title. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to titles that already have disambiguators because almost no one will actually type "Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 film)" as a search term. Getting readers navigated to the article they are most likely seeking from an unqualified title (i.e., Journey to the Center of the Earth) is the purpose of primary topic. See Talk:Loud (Rihanna album) and Talk:Rumors (Lindsay Lohan song) for similar cases. —  AjaxSmack  22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea is not to minimize keystrokes, but so that readers looking at the title will think, "Yeah, this is the article I am looking for," not "Why does this title have an odd-looking parenthetical?" The current parenthetical looks quite odd even if you have an understanding of Wiki's practices in this area. Kauffner (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The point of having disambiguation terms in the first place is to tell one topic from another. At Journey to the Center of the Earth (disambiguation), we have three 2008 films clustered together. They need to be disambiguated from each other. We don't deal in hierarchies. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The parenthetical is primarily to allow the software to distinguish the various articles, so the shorter and less intrusive the better. Ordinary readers are looking for information on a particular film and they are unlikely to know or care whether or not other items with the same title were released in the same year. "YEAR film" is the "disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context" as WP:NCDAB puts it. Kauffner (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is a theatrical film?

I'm just wondering why this is described, in the article heading no less, as a "theatrical film". I don't think I've ever seen it, so don't know what the film is like. But if a theatrical film is something specific, and this film is an example, I think the meaning of this should be mentioned, or else a link provided to another article that explains it; otherwise, if it's just a film, why not just title this article "Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 film)"? (Another point: are years normally included in article titles when not needed for disambiguating similar items?) But, as things stand, I feel it is not obvious or self-evident what a "theatrical film" is, and what makes this particular film a "theatrical film". M.J.E. (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A theatrical film is a film that is shown in theatres, as opposed to a TV film (like Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 TV film)) or a direct-to-video film that does not have a theatrical release and is published to home video formats (like Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 direct-to-video film)). The existence of three different films from the same year means that Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 film) is an ambiguous title. See the Requested Move discussion above. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Remake or unrelated adaptation of the same source?

The intro paragraph says:

It is the remake of the 1959 film of the same name…

That isn't sourced, it isn't what the rest of the article says (see the Development section, and the infobox), and I don't believe it's true—it's just yet another adaptation of the same source novel. So, I'm going to change it to say that.

Of course if anyone has a source that calls it a remake, revert it and source it. (And if there's anything interesting about why they bought the rights from Fox instead of just using the public domain novel, especially since they didn't use any of the characters or situations invented for the 1959 film, that could probably be added to the Development section as well.) But I don't think it is one. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus or Giganotosaurus?

User:70.64.101.50 changed Tyrannosaurus to Giganotosaurus with the edit summary:

The dinosaur has 3 fingers, so it is not a Tyrannosaurus.

I think it's actually an inaccurately-depicted Tyrannosaurus. IIRC, they never say in-movie. Most of the reviews (e.g., The New Yorker) refer to "T. rex". And it was clearly designed to make us think of Jurassic Park's T. rex, not to accurately depict paleontological research.

Plus, being tridactyl is hardly enough to confirm it as a Giganotosaurus. Why not, say, a Tyrannotitan?

So, I'm going to revert this. Unless anyone can find a source confirming what it's actually meant to be, I don't think we can just guess at what genus the depiction best matches. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)