Talk:The Children of Men

To do

• Critical reactions?

Comments

Wow, this sounds like a total ripoff of Greybeard (1964). Was acknowledgement given to Brian Aldiss when this was published? --SquidDNA 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds a bit too much like The White Plague by Frank Herbert as well. --NEMT 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this movie have an actual plot and characters, or is it just a discussion of what life would be like?

This is a book, not a movie CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have to say if this article is accurate and I have no reason to believe otherwise - what is the problem? The article seems to me both neutral, comprehensive yet concise. It is also interesting to read and well written. So why the dispute!

Actually, it sounded, or perhaps still sounds, pretty bad. The opening paragraph looked like it came directly from the dust jacket. Words like "thrilling tale" are not neutral. I changed a lot of the intro, but the article still needs a lot of work. Perhaps someone who has read it can completely rework the unhelpful plot summary.

Comment: The non-neutral external website links should be removed (including the ones someone has added at the top of this talk page). The "Source section" should not be hijacked by the Pro-Life lobby (or by the Pro-Abortion lobby for that matter) - a lot of people will be looking at this page searching for the new Clive Owen film and they need information, not opinion.

Comment: I recently read this book, and what jumped out at me was that it was very clearly informed by a conservative Catholic vision. The implicit anti-abortion message is only one representative aspect of that. First this explains the vandalism by the pro-life person. That said, it is neutral and useful information (though arguably original research unless sources can be found) that the book has a strongly articulated Christian vision/agenda, and thus may be appealing to some and unappealing to others on that basis. I had thought to mention this because I was looking at the wiki page for the film, and from the plot synopsis, it is clear that there is some kind of attempt to suppress the religious dimension of the book in the film adaptation, thus gutting it and replacing it with something else, which is something readers and prospective film-goers may find useful information as well. Agent Cooper 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

P. D. James is in fact a devout Anglican, not a Catholic. There are similarities. While official Anglicanism has distanced itself increasingly from the Christian moral tradition, a substantial minority of its adherents retains the moral outlook officially taught by the Catholic Church. This includes a strong pro-life position. Simplex 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think the real question here is that one needs to understand the subtlety of the plot. Key portrays the symbol of the virgin Mary when she stands in the stable with the cows- what a resemblance. She represents a new beginning that men have been given unless they manage to mess it up again. Children of Men is a beautiful movie that sends each and everyone of us that message that we need to hear- take care of our present so that we continue on in the future. We must realize that the meaning is not directly given to us as many movies usually do, instead we should look at the settings the scenes in which every important conversation, action, and motive takes place. Watch the film again if you have to.

Again, this is a book, not a movie! CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

61.58.53.139 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Moreso than the other authors mentioned (Aldiss and Herbert), "Children of Men" is even closer in storyline and events to "The Douglas Convolution" series by Edward Llewelyn. (Llewelyn's three books were published from 1979-1984.) It's so close I would dare say it borders on plagiarism or copyright infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Llewellyn

Film info cleanup

This entry is for the book and not the film, so I have reduced the info related to the film to the minimum (ie, removed past works, release dates) RoyBatty42 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

About this article...

This entire article is original research based on a personal reading of the novel. - 74.107.189.150 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

"Their marriage deteriorated after Theo accidentally ran over and killed their infant daughter Natalie about 15 years earlier. The novel opens with the first entry in Theo's diary. It is the year 2021, but the novel's events have their origin in 1995, which has been referred to as "Year Omega" ever since. Theo writes that the last human being to be born on Earth, a young Argentine man, has been killed in a pub brawl in Buenos Aires."

If the baby was an infant fifteen years beffore the year 2026, she must have been born in 2025, but if no humans were born after 1995, this is impossible. Is there a contradiction here?

According to the book the baby was killed in late 1994.

Not sure where the 2026/2025 years come from (confusing book with movie perhaps) but when you consider if "infant" is the author's or the article writer's choice of words. It begs the question how would an "infant" be out wandering around to get run over by a car. Because 2021 minus 15 is 2006, which would make the child around 11 if it was born in the last batch of 1995. In the film, the child shown in the pictures is around 10-12 years old. RoyBatty42 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Cut this:

• • In the PC game Half-Life 2 the alien Combine occupation on Earth does not allow humans to reproduce.

Sorry, but that's just too vague to be considered similar. The others cite collapse-of-civilization themes based on human sterility. RoyBatty42 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

The article says that the article on the film adaptation discusses difference from the book. It doesn't. Agent Cooper 13:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Psalm 90/91

There seems to be a small edit war regarding whether the title The Children of Men refers to Psalm 90 or 91. According to many sources, it is in fact Psalm 90.3 of the King James Version that reads: "Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men" [1][2][3] [4] [5] In other versions of the Bible, there are different translations (as always) of this line which sometimes reads: "But humans you return to dust, saying, "Return, you mortals!" (New American Bible [6]) or "You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men" (The New International Version [7]). Hebrew scriptures apparently have a translation that is similar to the latter.

I will edit the article to reflect the version of the Bible as well as the correct psalm number. Hopefully this settles things. :) María: (habla ~ cosas) 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no debate. It was an error on my part. —Viriditas | Talk 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the title references this psalm? The phrase "children of men" appears many times throughout the KJV. I just removed the entire trivia section again, but please re-add if you have a source linking this psalm to the book. Laplacian 00:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In Chapter 28, Theo and two Fishes bury a third Fish, recently murdered. Theo reads from the Burial Service of the Book of Common Prayer. This involves a reading of Psalm 90, "Thou turnest man to destruction: again tou sayest, Come again, ye children of men." I do not recall the phrase "Children of Men" appearing anywhere else in the novel, and I am sufficiently familiar with the Bible that I would have recognized the reference elsewhere. ...I hope. :-) Simplex 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info. Laplacian 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More sub-sections needed

The "plot summary" section is incredibly long and should be broken up more. Much of it is a description of the government rather than details about the characters; that's all useful, but it would be more readable if the plot had sub-sections of some sort. Not having read the book, I can't be specific, but I'd recommend sub-sections like "background" and "government" and "Theo". But the mish-mash of information as presented is hard to read. -Phoenixrod 18:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Still needed. Someone who's read the book, please give it a try. -Phoenixrod (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Banksy

I don't know about merit to other people, but I found it interesting that in the movie when Theo visited his brother there was some graffiti by the famous Banksy in the scene:

http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/banksy_cops_ladbroke_grove.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.221.211.72 (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Citation?

The second citation link fails to link to a proper web page. --86.27.90.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

P D James wrote this to prove Science Fiction is easy?

I have a vague recollection of hearing this comment, reflecting the fact the rest of her output is mainstream material. Does anyone have evidence of this? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)