Talk:Gattaca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suited for Space Travel

No mention of this then? The way they are all dressed when they go up into space? The surreal nature of the spaceflights surely deserves a mention... --Yyem 10:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You could mention it in the Trivia section. --Loremaster 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, is it that different from Star Trek and countless other sci-fi televion shows and movies where people go up in space in normal clothes rather than bulky astronaut suits? --Loremaster 16:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines discourage Trivia sections so the article no longer has one. --Loremaster (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

To me Gattaca appears to be based in substantial part on Robert A. Heinlein's novel Beyond This Horizon, published in about 1940. Is that acknowledged publicly anywhere? Also, in Heinlein's novel Starman Jones, the protagonist (1) falsifies his background in order to get a job, and (2) has memorized a book on astrogation; both (1) and (2) occur in Gattaca. Michael Hardy 02:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lying about one's background in order to get a job and memorizing material in order to do it successfully are common plot points in fiction. -Acjelen 20:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. -vaceituno 09:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In both stories, it was a book on astrogation that was memorized. Michael Hardy 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Talent borrows, genius steals. -Toptomcat 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved text from "Gattaca World" page

The following was moved here from a page entitled "Gattaca World". It has a strange structure: an essay written as if in the world of Gattaca. I have kept it here because it might just be useful in a writeup about the film: however I'm not sure all the detail here is necessarily drawn from the film. -- Anon, 22:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Naw it is all wrong. GATTACA was paranoia about the Human Genome project (mere identification of genes) and deals with how that would enable eugenic selection of embryos and people for jobs. For those that don't remember there was vocal opposition to the Human Genome project from some groups around the time of GATTACA was written. GATTACA assumed that DNA was more or less fixed for an embryo in order to emphasize the potential for discrimination. The message is "accept me and the new Albert Einstein with all our genetic defects; don't treat them as a problem." This the message of many hardcore deaf and blind societies. They like being different and separate but not the barriers to their dreams.

Still I have problems with USA court rulings that society must pay for whatever is necessary to enable a quadrapelegic person to become a firefighter if that is their dream. Too many bleeding hearts who aren't footing the bill in any major way themselves (the truly acceptable form of charity). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Being human is synonymous with being imperfect. If human imperfections were eradicated with the aid of science, then people would no longer be human.

Eventually genetic engineering advanced so far that it allowed humanity to tamper with the fabric of life. By the latter half of the 21st century genetic engineering has encompassed all aspects of human life. In fact, is has come to the point that it has become the basis for one's standing in life.

The majority of people are now made-to-order. What began as a means to rid society of inheritable diseases has become a way to design your offspring - the line between health and enhancement blurred forever. Parents are able to determine their childrens eye color, hair color, gender, and even skin tone. Everyone seeks to give their child the best chance but the most skilled geneticists are only accessible to the privileged few. Anyone who is a product of an altered DNA is proudly referred to as a "self-made man or woman" a "man-child". However officially those born with genetic alterations are known as "valids".

In addition, these people are genetically engineered to be void of terminal diseases, obesity, baldness, and a propensity towards violence. Many of them are also given alterations that have endowed them with advanced physical and intellectual capabilities. Valids compose the upper class of the society. They control all the corporations, the government, and the scientific community.

Those parents who, for moral, or most often economic reasons, refrain from tampering with their offspring's genetic makeup or who fail to abort a fetus condemn their children to a life of routine discrimination. Officially those that are born without any alterations are known as "invalids". Also called "godchildren", "faith births" or "uteros". They are the "healthy ill". They don't actually have anything yet - they may never. But since few of the pre-conditions can be cured or reversed, it is easier to treat them as if they were already sick.

All of the major corporations in the world won't accept any applicant that doesn't have the greatest genetic potential. Even though genoism, discriminating upon genetic background, is illegal, there are ways to step around the law. The microscopic particles that are transferred in a handshake, the saliva used to seal an envelope, and even a urine sample for a standard drug test can be utilized to peek into an applicant's genetic makeup.

No matter what skills or potential invalids possess, the only work they are suited for is janitorial in nature or some other base form of employment. People are no longer discriminated upon by their gender, race, or color. Only the content of one's blood and one's genetic potential are all that matters. Discrimination is now down to a science.

Many other of the key elements in the society are dependent upon genetic engineering as well. For example, there is a station that one can bring any piece of body material, such as a piece of hair, and find out all the genetic information about the owner of the material. Society has become more interested in what a person is composed of physically than what a person's personality is. People no longer think that they can achieve greatness through their own potential and skills. They now depend upon genetic alterations to give them the abilities they desire.

Even the police are overly dependent on genetic information as well. When doing a search at a crime scene, the police carry vacuums to pick up any strand of hair or other piece of body material that a criminal could have left behind. They are no longer able to identify a suspect by his face because they no longer keep current photo archives. DNA is the only identification card that they can verify.

In conclusion, the world has made numerous accomplishments that our societies could only possibly dream of emulating. Although they have conquered many aspects of science, they have grown too dependent upon it. Human character and potential have been set aside for the unvarying power of scientific achievement. It seems that as the society masters science, it also becomes a slave to it.

---

This sounds like a fan fiction polemic. A close-minded, backwards, luddite polemic trash, inspired by a luddite piece of trash passing as a movie, and written by luddite trash.--Mike Reason

Naw just the romantic, idealism of those who feel either everyone achieves their dream or we should all die. The people who would let everyone on the lifeboat even if it was obvious the excess weight was sinking it. The film itself if closely watched was filled with morale dilemma. Most people overlooked the strict population control due to an overburdened Earth that set the eugenics in place. They overlooked the fact that not everyone born could be allowed to reproduce...which was really the point of discriminating against "invalids". They would have been really outraged if they had. Such people have a racial and personal death wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.124.142 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

The trivia section seems to directly quote much of the IMDb trivia page for the film[1]. What's the policy on this? -Branddobbe 11:52, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. But note that trivia are comprised of "just the facts", and are thus inherently uncopyrightable. The fact that Gattaca features Esperanto, for example, is something anybody can notice and write down. We might do some careful rewording here and there for the longer trivia, but there's no way copyright comes into play here. Aside from plot summaries and reviews, which are original material, pretty much anything from IMDb can be st... borrowed. 82.92.119.11 21:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article no longer has a Trivia section. --Loremaster (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GATTACA?

This article was recently moved from Gattaca to GATTACA. Does anybody know why? - EurekaLott 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From Special:Contributions/David_Shear: "2005-12-30 12:18:53 (hist) (diff) Gattaca (moved Gattaca to GATTACA: The film title, GATTACA, is intentionally all uppercase, since it is drawn from the ATGC genetic code of DNA. It should be rendered properly.) (top)".

Sony Pictures, IMDb, and Google disagree. I'm moving it back. — Jeandré, 2005-12-31t18:46z

Why? It certainly seems more proper...and the title on the movie cover itself is rendered GATTACA. And it is drawn from the DNA code bases. In this case, I think that the opinions of the sources really don't matter...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-08.

ALL CAPS in movie covers seem to be the norm, even when the movie's title is not. Looking at my collection here, the following are in all caps: Aliens, Antarctica, City Hall, Fight Club, Full Metal Jacket, Gattaca, Gandhi, The Hurricane...

The only exceptions I have: Contact and WarGames in drop caps, Control Room in old style title caps, and Firefly in all lowercase.

While the title comes from the base types, I stil think the centre and film's name is in normal caps. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-08t21:32z

Is this really worth fighting over? On one hand, online scources present this film as "Gattaca," while the film itself is entitled "GATTACA." In all honesty, what is more reliable: some 3rd party sellers or the packaging and title of the film?

Deleted text

I've removed the following (large) text from the article which was added by User: 24.91.143.186:

“There is no gene for the human spirit,” a statement to truly set the tone for Gattaca. In a futuristic world where human genes are altered in the name of absolute perfection. Absolute perfection, what is absolute perfection? So much time we spend on this perfection, now perfection has become the norm.

The norm as discussed in Gattaca, is the creation of humans through a sort of gene therapy, which eliminates any “chance” of diseases, ailments, etc. But people in this reality have become machines, feeling invincible because of these perfect genes. There are other ways in which humans have become machines, this has also become the status quo because society has began to treat them as thus. Take for example the entrance to Gattaca itself, it is one long line into which people must shuffle into and place their finger onto for a blood sample from each person. These pieces of technology which we have now become the slaves to, where before we were considered to be the masters of. What did we truly master? To have technology imitate the human characteristics? To mimic human emotion? To show us what the future could be?

Ethan Hawke’s character humanizes his own brother when he beats him in their own game of “chicken.” The differences between each other are part of what make us human, Baudrillard makes a statement which defends this eloquently, “For it is the difference which forms the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.”(Baudrillard, 1) I think what Baudrillard meant by this is that we are willing to accept the possibility of differences amongst each other, and that “charm of the territory” is trying to understand people that are different from ourselves, and being able to appreciate those differences.

One of the crucial points in the film that accentuates the division of realities between the “god” children and those that were engineered, is the scene in which Jude Law and Ethan Hawke are arguing about his discovered eye lash in Gattaca. “You still don’t understand do you?” states Jude. His view and perspective of his own experienced reality helps Ethan consider the fact that they may not find him. For Ethan he has not begun to understand his present existence within is own created hyper reality so defined by Baudrillard; “in this passage to a space whose curvature is no longer that of the real, nor of truth, the age of simulation begins.”(Baudrillard, 2) Jude understands this because he has already seen Ethan’s transformation, also because he(Jude) was once part of the “Valid” group which Ethan is simulating. Baudrillard explains this difference with his idea of “presence” and “absence.” “To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't.”(Baudrillard, 2)

What Ethan represents is a sect of society which might be deemed as the iconoclasts, defined by Webster’s dictionary as “one who attacks settled beliefs or institutions.” Ethan is even consciously aware of this stating at one point that he is a “de-gene-rate.” But his actions hold with them larger implications, consider also the other definition of iconoclasts, “one who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration.” His simulation directly relates to his ability to destroy those images and symbols by which society has granted so much more depth and meaning than might be truly deserved to them. “All of Western faith and good faith was engaged in this wager on representation: that a sign could refer to the depth of meaning.”(Baudrillard, 3) Perhaps his actions in simulating that which has been given so much reverence, and depth is to engage us back to that which speaks to the true meaning of things.

Ethan did not merely simulate Jude’s character, but in truth he already was his character. All his life he had prepared to navigate space. During the film, when people screen comes up “in-valid” there is a cross in the corner of the screen, whereas when the screens comes up “valid,” there is an infinity sign in the corner. This representation might have been taken within their society as the cross representing limited possibility, in opposition to the infinite possibilities of the “valids.” In all reality the opposite was true in Ethan’s case. “A gigantic simulacrum: not unreal, but a simulacrum, never again exchanging for what is real, but exchanging in itself, in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference.”(Baudrillard, 3) Meaning that because of his spirit, his lifelong drive and pursuit of space travel, or just his general drive in life, the possibilities for him were truly endless. It also meant that because their society had become so obsessed with symbols and images, that they just began to loose the true meanings of things, and in so doing, these symbols became meaningless.

Baudrillard discusses the idea that people created representations of God to make god real, “the murderous capacity of images,” in his words, taking away from the idea that god is above and beyond the real, and that he cannot be placed into such a category. So is the case with Ethan’s character, his life predetermined and categorized because of symbols of genes, genes symbolize who a person truly is, their entire essence, and even who they will become. But genes do not account for emotions, knowledge, the subconscious drive, true to the theme of the film, the all encompassing spirit of a person. “There is no gene for the human spirit.” -Kevin Bradbury

Works Cited - (Excerpt) Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulations, Stanford University press, 1998

I have nothing against Jean Baudrillard, but I do think we have to be very careful how we use the claims of any particular thinker. We should be citing them where necessary to support claims that are necessary for the article. Nothing more (as it were), nothing less. If he has written a cogent analysis of the film Gattaca in his writings - we should say so in concise summary form, with appropriate sources to reference what he has said. But putting in a lump of his writings without integration into the article is just not good wikipedia writing. The idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about the film Gattaca not to push the ideas of any particular thinker.

--Loremaster 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

On May 22, 2006, User:75.2.7.200 deleted the criticism section arguing that “if you're going to criticize, post a source for it“. I've restored the section with some minor improvements and provided a reference. --Loremaster 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:213.54.165.50 has changed the name of the section to Reactions. I approve this change. --Loremaster 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Reactions section exclusively presents the views of one transhumanist thinker is not a legitimate reason to delete it so I've restored it. We should simply expand it to feauture the reactions of a broad experience. --Loremaster 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to do this then, because at the moment this section seems to be refuting criticism as opposed to giving a NPOV perspective on the movie. 132.239.1.231 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV defense of Gattaca and it's refutation, which were both unsourced. As for expanding the Reactions section, I leave that to others to do. --Loremaster 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a minor grammar fix, but would like to reopen the discussion on deletion: this reads like a bit from a transhumanist manifesto, and it's not clear how to fix that without a lot more material, material that has not been forthcoming though the issue has been extant for a while. I propose deletion of the section, with it being restored only when someone -- anyone -- can put together something approaching a balanced presentation. Otherwise, though the section may be theoretically justified it simply serves to advance a particular point of view, and that's a "wiki-no-no". atakdoug (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be opposed to the deletion but I agree that we should improve it to ensure neutrality. --Loremaster (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Beyond possibly expanding the first paragraph (by including more points from The New Eugenics in Cinema: Genetic Determinism and Gene Therapy in GATTACA', I think I have sufficiently improved this section to avoid having to delete it. --Loremaster (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Swimming Competition

It's been a while since I've seen this movie, but wasn't Jerome's second place finish an Olympic silver medal? If so, it should say that, otherwise it implies that it was just any old swimming competition. I'm sure that, prior to the Olympics, he had had to settle for less than first a few times, but didn't lose until he'd failed to achieve at the Olympics.

There's no direct reference to the Olympics so for all we know it could have been at a local swimming carnival.

Political Orientation

I object, IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS to the marriage of the term LIBERAL to the term EUGENICS contained in this article. There is NOTHING LIBERAL about Eugenics. If anything, an Authortarian society is a RELIGIOUS society, is a CONSERVATIVE, perhaps even a COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE society. In my lexicon Authoritarian = Religious Fundamentalist = Communism = CONSERVATISM. There is no mention, much less identification of the term "liberal" with Eugenics in the book, either. --Danshawen

Have you taken the time to read the article on liberal eugenics? The term liberal is used to differentiate it from the eugenics programs of the first half of the 20th century, which were associated with racism, classism, and coercive methods to decrease the frequency of certain human traits passed on to the next generation. So I suggest you google the term and learn more about it before making such strong objections based on ignorance. --Loremaster 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

THEN YOU SHOULD BE CALLING IT: "21ST CENTURY EUGENICS", SHOULDN'T YOU? As opposed to "conservative eugenics", or "communist eugenics", or "libertarian eugenics", or anything political in connection with eugenics. Thank you for directing me to the other messed up articles. You will find a similar discussion there. --Danshawen 09:57, 15 December 2006 (UTL)

1. Please stop writing in capital letters since it sounds like you are screaming which is considered a breach of netiquette.

2. It wouldn't make sense to call it "21st century eugenics" since there are nation-states like China which have been accused of currently engaging in the same kind of (coercive) eugenics that was practiced in the 20st century.

3. Refering to the new eugenics as "liberal" is NOT related to the political views of the proponents of this form of eugenics; it only relates to methodology and practice.

--Loremaster 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well. since you seem unwilling to relent on this point, it is my intention to edit the content of the wikipedia article covering the filmography of Beavis and Butthead, and change every instance of the word "a$$munch" to: "conservative a$$munch", to distinguish it from an ordinary sort of "a$$munch". There is about as much justification for this as there is to adding the modifier "liberal" in the context of Eugenics (purportedly to distinguish it from 20th century Eugenics) as there is for that little bit of prosaic license. Who the heck is "Loremaster" anyway? Ann Coulter, perhaps? Do you even begin to understand? --danshawen 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTL)

Danshawen, you are embarrassing yourself by this persistent, pathetic display of ignorance and antagonism. Have you read my reply to you on the Talk:Liberal eugenics page? That being said, I proudly consider myself a liberal so I find your insinuations insulting. --Loremaster 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't let him or her ruffle your feathers, Loremaster. Either danshawen/70.106.60.44 is confused about the nomenclature or he or she is trying to get a rise out of you. Personally, I think the former is more likely; other than the weird IP address/user name issue, danshawen's edits seem mainly to be good faith, as evidenced by bringing up the discussion on talk pages, &c. Lets keep a cool head on the subject, shall we? --mordicai. 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Loremaster 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to replace the term "liberal eugenics" with "new eugenics" in the Gattaca article only because of a version of the latter term is used in the film while the former isn't. --Loremaster 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Father?

What's the chance of the DNA tester being vincent's father.. (reference's to son, knowing all along...)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gattaca article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --Loremaster (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Box Office

Does anybody know how this film fared in the cinemas? I don't think it was successful but I'm not sure, so if anybody has the info please put it in. Damanmundine1 09:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See the side table. It made about 12.5 million on a 36 million dollar budget. It was well-recieved by critics, however with 87% of the featured reviews there being positive of the film and 67 percent of the featured reviews on Metacritic being positive as well. Feel free to add that information if you wish; I dont really think "reaction" in this article certifies as an evaluation of the film by bioethic conservatives. The Modern Prometheus 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the budget right? The 36 million budget is based on IMDB 'estimates', and revenues to 1998. Elsewhere Niccol is quoted as a just 20 million budget for this his first movie. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629272/bio TransControl

I read that article, and there it seems that he is implying that he wanted to do that film on 20 million dollar budget or intended to. This is quite the dilema, however. We must decide which is more accurate, IMDB or IMDB. For now, I am going to rely on the 36 million dollar estimate. The Modern Prometheus 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Shouldn't we include some reviews about the film in the article? A Lone Gamer 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some were included but we need more. --Loremaster (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

This article was mentined by conservative Atlantic blogger Ross Douthat here. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good but we need a more scholarly source. --Loremaster 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Engineering

The people in Gattaca weren't genetically engineered, as is stated in the introduction. The process as explained in the movie was as such: they take several thousand eggs from the mother, and then fertilize them with sperm from the father, then allow them to develop until they can safely test the dna. It was implied that they know the gene sequences for most if not all traits and genetic disorders, they eliminate all of the embryos with undesireable traits, and then let the parents choose from the remaining embryos. 129.128.235.203 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. The lead has been corrected. --Loremaster 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Beating his brother

"This is simply because he refused to save any strength to swim back to shore, and this is why he has excelled at Gattaca - he is willing to risk everything to succeed." That's not really the case - he says he doesn't save any strength, because he doesn't have to - "We're nearer to the other side now". I guess they swam in a cove, Vincent knowing how far the other side was. Anton thinks he has to swim the same distance they just swam, but Vincent knows they only have a bit further to go, to the other side of the cove, where they can then walk back (or carry an unconscious Anton back without him being any-the-wiser, as he did twice).

Hmmmm... Interesting. ---- Loremaster (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What really happened in the movie was that Jerome never trained to go past "the wall" in endurance athletics where the body begins to burn fat after stored glucose in liver is gone. A rather unrealistic idea introduced because the writer knows nothing about modern scientific training of athletes. Jerome would have trained in a nice safe "treadmill" pool to reach and pass the wall efficiently. So if Jerome could pass the wall, either Vincent would have overstrained his heart and died...or more likely both brothers would swam out past the point of no return, got cause in the tides and both died. The later happens too often in real life.

But yes mental and physical potential must both be developed. Nor are mental capabilities directly linked to physical ones once the body grows. However, GATTACA also blurs the distinction between strength of will as discipline and simply the willingness to die for your dreams and principles...those willing to die have a distinct increase in tendency to do so. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is all wrong. His brother was always worried about saving strength to swim out and then swim back. He always had his eye on the shore. Vincent just swam out and watched his brother waiting for him to tire out and then swim back. Your revision completely eliminates the purpose behind that scene to demonstrate that performance is as much about the strength of the will as it is about the physical abilities. He was willing to risk everything rather then keeping a safety valve. That's why he succeeded. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Gattaca.html

    JEROME and ANTON walk down a dune together towards the beach not
    far from Gattaca - an ocean beach pounded by an angry, black
    sea.  Jerome picks up a sharp piece of shell and slices the end
    of his thumb.  A drop of blood oozes out.  He offers the shell
    to Anton but Anton does not take it.

    Both men begin to disrobe.  The brothers stand beside each other
    on the sand once again - Anton still the more athletically-built
    of the two.

    Together, they enter the raging surf.  Diving through the
    breaking waves, they begin to swim.

    In the moonlit night, we watch their two bodies swimming side by
    side.  They swim a long distance, Anton waiting for his brother
    to tire.  But the pace does not slacken.  Anton pulls up in the
    water.  Sensing his brother is no longer beside him, Jerome also
    pulls up.  They tread water several yards apart.

                          ANTON
                     (attempting to conceal his distress)
             How are you doing this, Vincent?  How
             have you done any of this?

                          JEROME
             Now is your chance to find out.

    Jerome swims away a second time.  Anton is forced to follow
    once again.  Angry now, gritting his teeth, Anton calls
    upon the same determination we have witnessed during his
    constant swimming in the pool.  He puts on a spurt, slowly
    reeling in Jerome.

    Anton gradually draws alongside Jerome, certain that this effort
    will demoralize his older brother.  But Jerome has been foxing -
    waiting for him to catch up.  Jerome smiles at Anton.  With
    almost a trace of sympathy, he forges ahead again.  Anton is
    forced to go with him.  They swim again for a long distance.

    It is Anton who gradually becomes demoralized - his strokes
    weaken, his will draining away.  Anton pulls up, exhausted and
    fearful.  Jerome also pulls up.  However his face displays none
    of Anton's anxiety.

    They tread water several yards apart.  The ocean is choppier
    now.  The view of the lights on the shore is obscured by the
    peaks of the waves.

                          ANTON
                     (panic starting to show)
             Vincent, where's the shore?  We're too far out.
             We have to go back!

                          JEROME
                     (calling back)
             Too late for that.  We're closer to the other side.

    Anton looks towards the empty horizon.

                          ANTON
             What other side?  How far do you want to go?!
             Do you want to drown us both?
                     (becoming hysterical)
             How are we going to get back?!

    Jerome merely smiles back at his younger brother, a disturbingly
    serene smile.

                          JEROME
                     (eerily calm)
             You wanted to know how I did it.  That's
             how I did it, Anton.  I never saved anything
             for the swim back.

    Anton stares at Jerome, aghast.  The two men face each other in
    silence, treading water several yards apart in the dark, rolling
    ocean.

    Jerome turns and heads back towards the shore.  Anton is left
    alone with the terrifying realization.  The only sound, the wind
    and the water.

The DNA sequence

Although GATTACA is a perfectly valid DNA sequence, a BLAST on human genome/transcript, mouse genome/transcript, nr/nt, ESTs and HTGS in NCBI does not turn up ANY hits at all. Either I did something wrong or indeed this short sequence is very, very rare. This might be an interesting trivium. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

After some debate, it was decided that the article should avoid the inclusion of trivia. --Loremaster (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More likely your result would have been "No significant similarity found" as blast is designed to compare rather than search and a sequence seven in length does not compare to that of the the entire genome of a human. 131.91.92.184 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Destiny

I'm not sure why destiny is referenced in this article. I think the tagline 'there is no gene for the human spirit' says it best. Destiny to me implies some sort of external influence beyond the control of our protagonist. That somehow it isn't his grit and determination that sees him through to his goal, but instead it was just meant to be... I'd support removal of that sentence entirely. --JK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.90.117 (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the word destiny was temporarily deleted, the entire sentence should stay and be expanded since Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines encourage adding a section dealing with the major themes of a film. --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed this part from Critical Reception section:

"However, in his 2004 democratic transhumanist book, Citizen Cyborg,[4] bioethicist James Hughes explicitly criticized the premise and influence of the film Gattaca by arguing these points: Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons; In the United States, people are already discriminated against by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease despite the fact that genetic enhancement is not yet available; Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society needs genetic information privacy laws that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination (such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act passed in the United States House of Representatives on 25th April 2007). Citizens should then be able to make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they believe they have been discriminated against because of their genotype."

I just think commercial for that guys book has got as much to do with film as if someone mentioned neonaci books in holocaust section. Even so, if there is need for it to be mentioned, tell that in one sentance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.250.109 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Although the mention of the Citizen Cyborg book can be deleted to avoid the perception that is book is being advertised, I think his criticism of the film is pertinent enough that it should remain in the article as it was. --Loremaster (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DNA references

GATTACA is loaded with DNA references, so I'm going to add a section on the topic. please relate any dissention with reasons why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Before you add anything, please read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Release date

According to the Internet Movie Database, the film Gattaca was released in the USA on the 24 October 1997: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/releaseinfo --Loremaster (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Genoism

Support - the term genoism is key to the film but never comes up outside of it. Joestella 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gattaca completely subsumes Genoism. This is a no-brainer, IMO. ENeville (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If it could be shown that the word “genoism” has been used before and/or after the release of film without any reference to the film, it would deserves its own article. If not, I would support a merge. --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a movie, if genoism is noteworthy enough, make another article. It doesn't make much sense to merge entertainment with science. You can like it if you would like, but honestly I would like to see them as two separate articles. WilliamC24 (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Support The genoism article itself says that the term was coined by the director of the film, and as far as I am aware it has no currency outside discussion of the film. Oh, I should say, of course the title of the merged article should be Gattaca; I assume that was the proposal even though the section header doesn't reflect that. --Trovatore (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support As Trovatore: genoism goes here. Also, I disagree that the standard is use of the term without any reference to the film, but we would need to see (with sources) that it could stand pretty much on its own to justify a separate article. atakdoug (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Support because of what everyone else said. I've never heard it used anywhere else then Gattica. Lunakeet 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Rather than being merged with the Gattaca article, the Genoism article was moved to Genism. --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on a Book?

I've heard that this movie is based on some novel, does anyone know about it ? Well its worth mentioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.118.12 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The film Gattaca was inspired by, among other things, Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World but it isn't based on it. That being said, we could only mention such an inspiration if we have a reliable source for such a claim. Do you have one? --Loremaster (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why GATTACA?

It seems that any attempt to explain the origin of the title is deleted by Wikipedia's ayatollahs as "original research". Well, I am sorry to say that it is important to try to understand where this title is coming from. It is NOT a coincidence that the title is almost identical to the famous restriction enzyme site EcoRI and therefore alludes to one of the first tools used in molecular cloning. By deleting these comments you are suppressing useful information. Is GATTACA just a random sequence? Any molecular biologist will tell you no. Continue like this and Wikipedia will just become a mirror of average, common and dull thinking.76.176.119.249 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We all know that's the origin of the title, but at Wikipedia we like things to be "referenced" (I hear they do this in books too!). Myself personally, I would've allowed your little bit of trivia in the article without a reference, however other users are well within their right to remove unsourced content. However, thankyou for trying to save Wikipedia with your insightful comments, and we're sorry if you think providing proof of what you say is "dull", but that's how it is here.

To put it simply, you are trying to say; "The film is named after EcoRI". Find a webpage (that's not a blog, or a wiki) with a quote from the director/producer/writer or Ethan Hawk saying; "The film is named after EcoRI", post a link to it here, and we'll do the rest, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You do not need a quote or a reference to compare the sequence of EcoRI and GATTACA, just common sense. So it seems that there is a big confusion in Wikipedia policies between proof and reference. And rest assured, that is my last and final comment on the subject, as I am not paid for this and my hourly rate and opportunity cost are expensive.76.176.119.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

I don't make the rules, just follow em ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The sequence of EcoRI is GAATTC (besides obviously not spelling out Gattaca) doesn't even "anagram into" Gattaca as there's an missing A. Where is the purported 'common sense' naming relationship? This is why WP requires sources. --Pentasyllabic (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the exact reason why I've been removing this original research. --Loremaster (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be notted that GATTAC happens to be related to EcoRI, which is used in cloning and may be influencial in the title or the title may have been a semi-random mix of nucleotide letters that was chosen because it sounded like a good title? The coinsidence would at least be a bit of interesting trivia and doesn't have to be given in a way that speaks for the author in an unverified manner. I don't think that would be oiginal research would it? 98.28.114.217 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is original research so no it can't be noted. By the way, if you are going to contribute to this article in a serious manner, I strongly encourage you to create a user account (even if you don't have to) since it is not only useful for keeping track of articles you edit but it also fosters a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to make an account, anyone can edit Wikipedia, that's the point. As long as you're sensible in your edits (i.e. not vandalising), accountability shouldn't be an issue. Also I agree with Loremaster, that even the mention of EcoRI would be Original Research. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? I specifically pointed out that you don't have to make an account. However, although anonymous editing is welcomed in Wikipedia, many people would be less tempted to engage in edit wars over trivial obsessions (such as what is occuring now) if their editing could be traced back to one user account. --Loremaster (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you thought you came on a bit strong there at first mate, as you just redacted your original post that said; "if you are going to contribute to this article in a serious manner, I strongly encourage you to create a user account". We all stopped this new guy putting in OR, but lets not scare him off, even if he was a bit rude. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although that's obviously not my goal, I can't say I would shed a tear if I scare off people who violate behavorial guidelines such as being polite. Anyway, let's move on. --Loremaster (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, how was I rude? If you paid any attention at all you would notice my IP address is different from who ever is trying to include the information. Yet Loremaster's comment about making serious contributions was made in reference to me. Although I fail to see how my posts are annoymous as i sign them with my IP address which can be clicked on to see all the comments/edits I make to all of Wikipedia. I was perfectly reasonible an polite in my support of 76.176.119.249's addition and even asked for clarification on the issue of OR. Yet I was responded to rudely and then accused of rudeness and trying to add original research to this article. I have never even made an edit to the actual article. Maybe it is you Loremaster and Ryan that should modify your behavior.98.28.114.217 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for confusing you with the other anonymous user but that is something that often happens when someone doesn't have an account... That being said, I consider this EcoRI issue settled. --Loremaster (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Chill out mate, I was talking about the original IP, see his first post at the top of his thread (which is rude). Ryan4314 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While the rudeness was unjustified, it's important to remember that some computers regularly change their IP addresses, which can lead to confusion among registered editors as to whom they are interacting with. In this way, people who use computers configured with a dynamic IP address tend to unintentionally muddy the waters of conversation with anonymous editors. Signing up for an account ensures that editors will always know who they are talking to, and help prevent such confusion in the future. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, there's only been one case of rudeness here, and that's the IP at the top of this thread. I'm not to thrilled about 98.28.114.217's comment "If you paid any attention at all" either, but I assume that's just a misunderstanding. Also the WHOIS info on the two IP's is practically identical[2][3], both with the same ISP in Vancouver, so it's easy to see why they could be mistaken for the same person. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jc-S0CO regarding the confusion issue. --Loremaster (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It stands to note though that as of today, neither a nr/nt nor an EST BLAST cannot find a sequence -GATTACA- in any genetic code known to date. That is citable and by and in itself might qualify as remarkable. IONO the odds of a 7-base sequence not occurring anywhere in nr/nt, which is over 1 gigabyte in size by now. If I did not miscalculate, there are 16,384 different 7-base sequences. It looks pretty improbable to me... but one rather obvious reason is that it is impossible to read the most common amino acids from -UGUAAUC- without getting a STOP codon, or at all. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia that isn't important to a better understanding of the film. --Loremaster (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? ATCG? Genetics? The sequence of DNA? Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

" : Study Guide > Gattaca
1. The title of the film as GATTACA gives a sequence of nucleic acids: G-A-T-T-A-C-A:
guanine, adenine, thymine, thymine, adenine, cytosine, adenine. " Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See the first 2 posts of this thread to answer your question. Also that link you posted is a website made by a teacher and his students, there observation of the similarities between ATCG and the title GATTACA is also "original research". As I stated in my my first post: You will need a quote from the film's director/producer/writer or Ethan Hawk saying; "The film is named after EcoRI". Ryan4314 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism / heart failure

For all we know, Jerome/Vincent does not have any heart problems at all. It has only been stated in the film that he has a 99% PROBABILITY of ending up with a heart failure.
The whole point of the movie is: you don't know FOR SURE how you will end up, it's just that he's living in a society where companies/insurance brokers/kindergartens are not willing to take the RISK.

Thus, it should be noted that the first point made by James Hughes is INVALID. --Nick 62.143.72.180 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right in that the film is a bit ambiguous on the extent of Jerome's heart problems. His successful swimming contests with his brother suggest no problem (although he alludes to failures), but his heart arrhythmia after exercise suggests that perhaps he does. The film's central premise against genetic discrimination works either way: if he has a heart condition, his ultimate triumph suggests that he shouldn't have been discriminated against; if he doesn't have a heart condition, it goes to show how flawed genetic testing is.

But, as far as the article is concerned, the portion you're talking about is just reporting on criticism of the film made by a notable individual (and the criticism is pertinent as it's also referenced in another article). We can't correct it (that is, make it conform with our POV) since this would constitute original research. A reliable source that argued against Hughes could be appropriate, although it may be more appropriate over at the other article. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for another source than the movie itself, because it's stated quite clear (the following is a transcript by myself):

             MOTHER
You have to be realistic. With a heart condition like yours...

             VINCENT
Mum, there's a chance there's nothing even wrong with my heart.

             FATHER
One chance in a hundred.

             VINCENT
Well, I'll take it, alright?

             MOTHER
The trouble is, they won't.

So it should at least be noted that Hughes' point is not a valid criticism towards the movie and/or its intentions.
The point is that we do NOT know for sure whether he has a heart failure or not. Because in the end, it doesn't MATTER.
By the way: he does not have any heart arrhythmia after the exercise. His heart is simply beating much faster, because he is so exhausted. They didn't tell him to stop (they were distracted by the interrogation) and Vincent didn't dare to stop by himself (like others do), so he just overextend himself there to maintain his image of perfection.

If anyone thinks the criticism should stay in the article nonetheless, there should be a paragraph following it, in the likes of:
"However it should be noted that it is never stated in the movie, that Vincent actually suffers from heart problems"

But to be honest, I think it should stay out of the article completely, as it's not meant as a criticism towards the movie anyway, but towards the so-called "Gattaca-Argument". --Nick 62.143.72.180 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to point out or query plot-holes (see WP:SYN), however I have no problem with the edit you've made to the article. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Plumago and Ryan4314. Furthermore, I think the exercise scence could be interpreted to suggest that the character did have heart arrhythmia so we should avoid inserting a dubious POV in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are missing the point. The FACT is, we do not know for sure if he has a heart failure or not. That's the whole point. The criticism assumes he DOES have a heart failure, which is as "dubious POV" as saying he doesn't.
If you'd read my above points carefully, you'd understand, that I am AGAINST saying he DOES NOT have a heart failure as well. It's just we don't know. Because IT DOESN'T MATTER. He lives in a society where the PROBABILITY of having a heart failure is equipollent to having one. --Nick 62.143.72.180 (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We all think the edit you made to the article is fine, so I don't know why you're still talking about this, but on Wikipedia we are not supposed to discuss or theorize plots, let alone potential plot holes. We just report the plot the in the summary. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if you'd actually read what I am talking about. I created this section in the talk page about the criticism towards the movie made by James Hughes which is featured in the "Critical reception" section of the article. Nowhere did I mention any plot-hole, I wonder where you get this from, I don't even know what possible plot-hole you are referring to.

Likewise, it is beyond me how you think I want "to discuss or theorize" anything. That's exactly what I DO NOT want. I am talking about facts. Vincent having a heart failure is no fact, far from it. It is an inherent part of the story that we don't know whether he has one or not. That's why James Hughes criticism of the movie's premise is invalid, because he bases it upon an illegitimate assumption. Hence, this should either be noted in the article or the criticism should be left out of THIS article completely.--Nick 62.143.72.180 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When you become a famous bioethicist, then we'll put your rebuttal in the article sweetheart. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nick,

1. I strongly recommend that you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia.
2. The idea that Hughes' criticism is based on an illegitimate assumption is not a fact but your opinion.
3. Whether or not a criticism is valid is irrelevant, Wikipedia only requires that criticism comes from a reliable source. James Hughes is a relatively well-know bioethicist because of his promotion of transhumanism and his criticism of the film Gattaca can be found in a book he published. If you can find and cite a reliable source that contradicts him, feel free to do so. Otherwise, let it go.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Thank you, but I don't want to spend my time debating over obvious things with people that don't even take the time to read what I am talking about.
   To be honest, this was kind of a test if I want to take the time to overhaul the article, because I'm graduating in Philosophy at the moment and Gattaca is part of my exam. Thus I have gained a lot of knowledge about its themes and Andrew Niccol's intentions but it's just tiring making the same points over and over again.
   
2. No, it is not my opinion. There is no evident in the movie, that the main character is suffering from any heart problems, thus "Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons" is not a valid criticism, because that is not the reason why the main character chose to become an impostor. It is self evident for anyone, who understands the movie.
3. I understand that. That is why I proposed to delete the criticism in that particular article, because it doesn't address the movie. I don't have to be a "well-know bioethicist" to understand a movie, you see? His criticsm is towards the Gattaca argument, not the plot of the movie. He's not a movie critic, so why does his opinion matter here? We don't even know, if he has actually seen the movie, he simply addresses the people who raised that argument based on the movie. So, the point I quoted above is perfectly valid, as it stands for itself but it has nothing to do with this particular movie.

That's all I have to say here. I "let go" now. Have a nice day. --Nick 62.143.72.180 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, another philosophy student. Gattaca was part of my exam too, except I graduated over a year ago. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

1. My suggestion that you create a user account has nothing to do with the time you choose to spend discussing improvements to any given article. You will simply find having an account useful even if you never engage anyone in discussion.
2. My point is that, since it is not absolutely clear that the main character was not suffering from any heart problem, viewers are free to interpret it however they choose. Thus Hughes' criticism can still be considered valid.
3. I disagree. In his book (which I have read), Hughes explicitly critiques both the plot of the film and the argument that has been created because of the film. Readers of the Gattaca article benefit from knowing that the film Gattaca has had an impact on bioethical discourse. The fact that you think Hughes' criticism is fallacious is irrelevant. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the one who wrote the Critical reception section of the Gattaca article as well as the Gattaca argument section in the Transhumanism article.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just ask yourself how valid a criticism is, that is based on your own interpretation. The mere fact that you acknowledge that it is just an interpretation that he has heart problems, makes the criticism invalid if somebody else interprets it differently. If you have to make a bold assumption to make your point, it won't stand when taking that assumption away.
Keep the section if you like for the sake of making clear the movie did have some form of impact but that doesn't make the criticism towards the movie any more valid. --Nick 62.143.72.180 (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For a philosophy student, you seem clueless. All criticisms are based on interpretation and assumption. Counter-criticisms are based on a different interpretation that question the interpretation and assumption on which the criticisms are based. As I've said before, the fact that Hughes' criticism may not be valid is irrelevent to whether or not it should be included in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"For a philosophy student, you seem clueless. All criticisms are based on interpretation and assumption"
It seems you want to misunderstand me on purpose. There's is no use in arguing about this anymore. 62.143.72.180 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

false "facts"

I have the book in question before me now and I can not believe the pseudo debate we had here. The person who wrote that part of the article didn't either understand Hughes' point (yes, singular) or didn't read it at all. Hughes says exactly the same as I did here - I quote:

The protagonist is desperately trying to hide his genetic predisposition to heart problems so that he can pursue a career as an astronaut.

Predisposition! Exactly my point. Turns out Hughes got the movie after all. To top that off, the first argument in this article (which was the one that "started it all") is specifically not made by Hughes - again, I quote:

Setting aside the fact, that astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems, will germinal choice create a society where people are sorted into rigid castes on the basis of their genetics?

Setting aside the fact! See, it is not a point made to "explicitly criticize the premise" of the movie. How ignorant must one be to distort a quote in such a way? Please note, Hughes even answers his own question above with a "yes, possibly". Furthermore, the following argument about already existing discrimination is part of the following (and only) argument that society needs privacy laws for genetic information. In other words: there's only one, not three, arguments in the book towards the Gattaca argument. The part of the article should be rewritten accordingly. --Nick 62.143.73.54 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Poor Nick, are you still obsessing over this issue 5 months later? I suggest you quote the entire section dealing with Gattaca in Hughes's book to give it proper context. Furthermore, Hughes has written articles for Betterhumans.com (which are no longer available online) and done radio shows where he does explicitly criticize the premise of the film in more detail. --Loremaster (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Expansion

After taking into account all the discussions that have now been archived on July 30th, I am requesting that the article be expanded according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. I have therefore created new sections (Production; Cast and crew; Major themes; Release; Soundtrack) which all well-informed users should feel free to expand and/or improve. --Loremaster (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Filming locations and additional data added

I always was fascinated about this movie and where it was filmed, so I've added the filming locations, that can be found here...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/locations

And also the critics to this movie...

http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/films/gattaca/gattaca.html

However, I'm not very skilled in wikipedia and don't know how to add this website as a reference for the article... may someone here help me to polish it... editing the article and adding the little reference numbers about the filming locations, the critics, etc... ? Thanks

Although I can't be opposed to adding more background/production information in the Gattaca article, I don't think adding a self-published review by an unnotable critic is appropriate. Since you are not very skilled in Wikipedia, I suggest you create an account and read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New content temporarily moved from article to talk page

I've moved the new content you added to this talk page for discussion and copyediting in light of the new sections that needed to be created:

Lead

The production shooting began in April 22, 1996

Filming locations

Gattaca was originally filmed in:

• Barstow, California, USA
• California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA
• City Hall - 200 N. Spring Street, Downtown, Los Angeles, California, USA
• Culver City High School - 4401 Elenda Street, Culver City, California, USA (Pre-school)
• KJC Solar Farm, Los Angeles, California, USA
• La Jolla, California, USA
• Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, California, USA - Marin County, California, USA
• The Forum - 3900 W. Manchester Boulevard, Inglewood, California, USA
• Mojave Desert, California, USA

Cinematographic processes

Otto Nemenz Cameras and Lenses, Technicolor, 35 mm Spherical, Super 35 2.40:1 Anamorphical. Sound Mix: Dolby Digital / SDDS

Awards

• Academy Awards 1997 Nomination Best Art Direction - Set Decoration Nancy Nye; Best Art Direction-Set Decoration Jan Roelfs
• Golden Globe 1997 Nomination Best Original Score Michael Nyman
• Catalonian International Film Festival, Sitges 1997 Best Film, Best Original Soundtrack
• London Critics Circle Awards 1999 ALFS Award Screenwriter of the Year Andrew Niccol - Also for The Truman Show (1998)

Cast

Director: Andrew Niccol, Screenplay: Andrew Niccol, Producer: Danny DeVito, Michael Shamberg, Stacey Sher, Associate Producer: Joshua Levinson, Georgia Kacandes, Director of Photography: Slawomir Idziak (Technicolor, Super 35), Original Music: Michael Nyman Additional Music: Franz Schubert (from "Impromptu in G major, Op. 90, No. 3”, adapted), Film Editor: Lisa Zeno Churgin Sound: Stephan Von Hase-Mihalik (production sound mixer), First Assistant Director: John R. Woodward, Casting: Francine Maisler Production Design: Jan Roelfs, Art Direction: Sarah Knowles, Set Decoration: Nancy Nye , Stephen T. Alesch, Randall D. Wilkins Costume Design: Colleen Atwood, Makeup: Ve Neill, Special Effects: Gary D'Amico, Chris Watts (visual effects supervisor) // Cinesite Hollywood, The Computer Film Company (digital compositing, paint work) , 3dsite Opticals Cinema Research Corp. / Miniatures: Hunter Gratzner Industries, Computer Graphics/Design Producer: Cheryl Bainum/POP Film, Production Companies: Columbia Pictures Corporation / Jersey Films, Distributor: Columbia Pictures (USA) ---

I will be adding new medical information about the surgery operation that Vincent had to get the height of Jerome Morrow, that surgery is real (not science fiction), also I will add the filming locations to the content of the article, because I find no reason to remove that information, which add more interesting information about the movie. Also is a fact, a trustful information, so removing it would damage the natural grow of this article and the general aim of wikipedia, share the knowledge. Regarding critics, I concur about not indicating a self-published review.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.170.163 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I only moved the content you added from the Gattaca article to this talk page because 1) it did not conform to Wikipedia style guidelines and 2) we needed to create sections which meant that it was temporarily unclear were some of this content should go. Once these problems are resolved, an improved version of the content would and will be integrated into the article. That being said, if you are interested in extensively contributing to the Gattaca article, I strongly recommend that you create an account. Beyond being extremely useful for an editor, it contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia in general. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not information is reliable, it must conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to be included. So please remember that trivia about the film should not be included simply because you think it's interesting... Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

who plays

the detective guy that detective hugo keeps calling sir? can't seem to find his name on cast list here or imdb... n-dimensional §кakkl€ 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

nvrmind. mega-plot-spoiled myself. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Silver medal turns to gold

What's up with this device in the plot? I apparently can't see any gold in this scene, yet people come and repeatedly reinstate this phrase. Is this a part of the published script, or just someone imagining something? --188.123.237.4 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's an unreferenced opinion and should be removed at any occurrence. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Esperanto

This film is referenced as being an Esperanto film - I assume that there is some dialogue conducted in Esperanto, such as in Blade Trinity. However, I read nothing stating how this film can be listed as such. Is Esperanto spoken in this film, and if so, which scene? maclilus (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

According to history, User:Gaudio added [[Category:Esperanto films]] to the Gattaca article on 17:53, 18 January 2007 (and User:Cydebot moved [[Category:Esperanto films]] to [[Category|Esperanto-language films]] on 13:22, 4 May 2007). So I suggest you ask Gaudio on his talk page since he or she still contributes to Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The PA announcements at Gattaca are in Esperanto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View: Structure

The last paragraph under "Critical reception" states:

However, in 2004, bioethicist James Hughes explicitly criticized...

His opinion about recording genetical information, rather than about the movie, follows in a conclusive manner, ending the section. IMO this structure is against the NPOV policy, as it leads to think this opinion is the "current/accepted/right" one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.135.37 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are significant problems with the prose. I'll take a look and see if I can help fix it. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the page in question, I believe. Erik (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We should probably try to stick a bit closer to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: Hughes is an atypical bioethicist, and his views are probably not what we would consider mainstream. I'm not saying there is something wrong with using Hughes, but we need to use this material carefully. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV not a fact. That being said, Hughes's comments about Gattaca are not limited to what is said in the book. He has commented on it often on his blog as well as his radio show. So we simply need to have more sources rather than changing the text. --Loremaster (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot

I don't mind someone triming the section. however, every inclusion or deletion should be judged according to the merit of the content. For example, the fact that Jerome attempted sucide was revealed later in the plot. And I believe this is an important revelation so this should not be stated in conjunction with earlier bio of Jerome. I also thought that the motives of the characters are important elements to drive the plot so the fact that Irene has a defective gene is important. But feel free to debate it here. Vapour (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Coincidence, anagram or something else

I guess most people are by now aware that the word GATTACA contains only the four letters representing four DNA base nucleotides; I've noticed something else, which might be a coincidence, that it is almost an anagram of the promoter sequence TTGACAT (there is one T more though)... :) Arny (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Gattaca article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

NASA "Worst Films" list

In January 2011, NASA published a list with the most and least plausible science fiction films, with Gattaca earning the first position as the most "realistic" among them."'2012' named most 'absurd' film". Toronto Sun. January 3, 2011. Retrieved January 4, 2011.

I removed this 'fact' as this has it, in reality, was a misquote and indeed not true. 170.201.172.68 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This story was first published with a detailed list in the Times[4]. Since it's subscription required content, I used a readily available source from the Toronto Sun. So unless it's been proven false by a reliable source, I'm restoring the text for now. - Artoasis (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll restore it myself. --Loremaster (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If anyone is interested in the list, check out the screenshot here [5]. It's not posted by me, so it could be deleted at any point, :) - Artoasis (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

According to a blogpost of The Planetary Society, NASA's list of the worst sci-fi movies ever made was “a case of spectacularly bad reporting” (See A Worldwide Game of "Telephone" Distorts NASA Meeting ) Therefore, mention of it was deleted from the Gattaca article and should not be restored. --Loremaster (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I was wondering why NASA would provide such a list to a Times reporter. Amusing read nonetheless. - Artoasis (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

on "Critical Reception"

I do not dispute point #1 that astronauts should be screened for safety-relevant factors, such as known (not pre-disposition) for heart disease. However I will dispute point #2 (insurance propensity rules) and #3 (genetic privacy laws). See the article for details. Under #2 I would dispute that "enhancement is not available". In some cases, that is true, by today's standard. But I will cite an example where human growth hormone can overcome a genenic condition of dwarfism. There may be others, and technology does advance. The movie was not set in a specific time period, so I would argue that point #2 is not valid in context to this movie. As for #3, there are perfectly good points for generating such laws, but the movie also presents a futuristic scenario whereby such laws do not apply. Furthermore, DNA testing is commonly done today for foresics, so I fail to see the point. See Biometric identification for am an example of using such methods as a means of access control. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Gattaca article not debating about whether or not a reliable source's opinion is valid. --Loremaster (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Human Spirit

"There Is No Gene For The Human Spirit."[6] is the official tagline of the film. Also, I personally think this is the most eloquent tagline of this film (there are 5 more). Anyhow, since this is the official theme, this term should be the one to be used to describe the film. Vapour (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Where and how exactly? --Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is in my first comment. Vapour (talk)

Please review WP:RS/IMDB and WP:TAGLINE. That simply is not good enough. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. I find that to be the weakest of the taglines, and the theme of destiny (genetics, etc) is explicitly mentioned by the sources. Of course, if Vapour wants to start a paragraph about the human spirit in the theme section, based on good sources, I will be happy to change my mind. Generally, we don't edit film articles based on taglines, but they can help point us in the right direction. Do we have sources that mention the human spirit as a theme? Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple google search indicate that "human spirit" tagline is the one which is most "popular". Still, whether the tagline is or isn't the strongest or weakest of tagline is a matter of personal opinion. That is why I used the word "anyhow" in the subsequent comment. What count is whether the term "human spirit" (or "destiny") can be verified and by what sources it is verified.

As of "we don't edit film articles based on taglines", that is your personal opinion. Taglines, especially famous ones are refereed in film reviews numerous time. The dictionary definition of tagline is "slogan" or "catchphrase". Whether the term "human spirit" is theme or slogan is semantic. Moreover, tagline is chosen by the people who made the film.

Please find the source for the term "destiny", preferably sourced to the people who made the film. In such case, both destiny and human spirit belong to the intro as official theme/slogan. If the term "destiny" can only be sourced to outside film critics, then the term destiny belong to "Reception" section. Vapour (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Simple google search" is not the appropriate response when you are asked for sources supporting "human spirit". A tagline that shows up in a Google search is not a reliable source. Asking me to provide you with sources about destiny, tells me you haven't done the most basic research on this topic. Virtually all of the best sources on this subject discuss genetic determinism, the idea (however inaccurate and/or controversial it may be) that "biology is destiny"—the primary theme of the film. For further guidance on this issue, please review WP:TAGLINE. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas. --Loremaster (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah do you not read my whole comments? Firstly, I have provided the source for the human spirit tagline in the first comment. But if you can't bother to read, here is another one. Here[7] and one more here[8]. Secondly, the point I was trying to make was that whether you who think this tag line is the weakest or me and majority in internet who think otherwise are not relevant. If all you can find for the sources for the term "destiny" is from film critics and other third party sources, then please feel free to add the term with specific attribution that it is a third party opinions. But please leave the official tagline/slogan/catchphrase/theme of the film alone. Vapour(talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can read just fine, and I pointed you to WP:RS/IMDB and WP:TAGLINE. Your sources, putting aside whether they are reliable or not, are primary, not secondary. If you want to add content that is based on an observation or critical commentary about the film, you will need to refer to secondary not primary sources. There appears to be confusion on your part on how we use sources and how we represent taglines. You may want to start an RFC or take this to the film project because I am evidently not going to change your mind. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

" Exceptions may include famous taglines". [9]One academic book even state "A central message of the film is that 'there is no gene for the human spirit'". Vapour (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And those alleged exceptions require reliable sources demonstrating their significance. This is not a famous tagline and is mostly irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

These are from Google scholars. They are academic papers and books. Here are another one. "Quoting the concluding message of the film GATTACA—"there is no gene for the human spirit"", or "The film's final message is that there is no gene for the human spirit". All of these are in the link I provided. Also, this particular tag line is sometimes refered as "THE tagline" in some of these sources, one article referring it as "subtitle". Also, this debate is not just about the term "human spirit" but whether the term "destiny" is an appropriate term to replace the former one. For this, you so far provided very little. Vapour (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please name these scholars. When you're finished, please quote them and review their use as reliable sources. Searching by keyword is fun, but you need to learn how to evaluate a source for reliability. Simply pointing me to a search result isn't how we cite sources. Chose one and name it here. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to provide these multitude of academic sources when the time come to put "the human spirit" in the article. Until then, please feel free to make few clicks and confirm that these academic source indeed exist. If you missed it the last time, here[10] Also, I eagerly wait your side to provide source for the term "destiny". So far, I haven't seen even one from you. Vapour (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The way things work on Wikipedia is that you discuss substantial changes here on the talk page before making them, once consensus has been acheived, you supply full citations when adding information in the article itself. --Loremaster (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Vapouor, we don't provide links to Google searches as examples of reliable sources. I looked at your link and saw unreliable and contradictory material. If you want to pick one or two simply by giving URL's to each individual source you want to use, I'll evaluate it here for reliability. Keep in mind, you need to compare the sources that say what you want them to say with the sources that don't. The link to the search result you provided tells me you didn't read it very carefully. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you misunderstood. Vapour was referring to (presumably) RS found on Google Scholar, i.e. academic and often peer-reviewed publications. Not to unspecified "scholars" found on a normal "Google [search]". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: On the older, original DVD version, Uma Thurman mentions the human spirit in her interpretation of the film, and that should be added to the cast section. I'll keep looking for more. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see that you changed your mind, Viriditas. The whole point of the movie is that we humans / the geneticists are completely unable to determine a man's destiny. It is his own choice from the strength of his mind, which cannot be measured, that he crafts his life. The power of the human spirit and the failure of the geneticists are the obvious main theme of the movie. And before anybody claims that I am doing original research or interpretation I must claim that I do not need to prove that the sky is blue. It is an obvious fact, you all just have to go outside and open your eyes. As of October 2013, a test on a blood sample from a pregnant woman can be used to map the entire genome of the fetus. You don't have to wait for the child to be born and you do never even examine the fetus. Then you can see whether the child suffers from Down Syndrome, has a high risk of breast cancer or a wide variety of other unwanted conditions. The slogan of the newspaper article was that Angelina Jolie, having an 80% risk of breast cancer, would never have been born. India and China already suffer from the extremely high abortion rate of female fetuses. We as a species are way to careless with our actions, overlooking real threats and concentrating on pseudoscientific nonsense such as anthropogenic climate change. Gattaca is one of my favourite movies because of its accurate description of the abuse of science and because of the accurate description of science such as the problem with the starting window. Most people do not realize this, but the biggest concern of science fiction is not some gimmick but the impact of scientific developments on society and how people deal with it. In the case of Gattaca, it is the story of Vincent who, right after being born, is being discriminated against and overcomes all obstacles to become an astronaut. (91.63.226.72 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC))

physical, intellectual and psychological dysfunction and under-performance

I don't quite understand why these three have to be edited out. Physical dysfunction would cover the illness and disease and intellectual dysfuntion is much broader, general, and hence more appopriate term than educational one in my opinion. Lastly, psychological dysfunction is one of few conditions nurse mentioned when Vincent was born. Vapour (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the most important points; wordy paraphrasing is discouraged. If you want to point me to some sources on this aspect of the film, I am amenable to changing my position. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas. --Loremaster (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, in that case, why not get it directly from the source. high probability of neurological disorder, manic depression, attention disorder, heart disorder and expected life expectancy of 30 years. [11]. Vapour (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't use personal interpretations of primary sources. Please try to familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:V. I'm certainly willing to make whatever changes you propose as long as you have reliable sources to support them, however, in this instance, we should stick to the sources. I have no objection to expanding the body, but the lead should stick to the main points. It already says "considered more susceptible to disease, educational dysfunction and shorter lifespans", which can probably be reduced even more, not expanded. Genetic disorder works just fine. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How the direct reference from the film could be seen as "personal interpretation" is beyond me. Also, wasn't your "educational dysfunction" a personal interpretation of "attention deficit disorder"? And Vincent is likely to develop heart condition and he is not "susceptible to disease". Please familarise yourself with the film. Vapour (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't interpret primary sources. Find reliable sources to support your proposed content. I'm all in favor of removing it entirely as unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So please abstain from interpretation and allow the direct quote from the movie to stand on its own merit. How can it be unsourced? What source could be better than the original base material? What is this trolling about?(91.63.226.72 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC))

Famous Quote

Please include in the article the phrase " There is more vodka in this piss than there is piss! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.160.102 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Strebe (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, why? It is neither famous nor encyclopedic. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixing a couple of errors

I have just watched the movie and, in the copy I watched, Eugene won a silver medal at the Olympic Games. Also, before he toasts himself, Eugene says that he has stored enough genetic samples to last Vincent two years (not lifetimes). I fixed these, but my edit was reverted by User:Strebe. Perhaps more than one version of the movie was released, but I doubt this. HairyWombat 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got the movie on Blu ray at home and wouldn't mind reviewing these items, but I'll likely need to be poked with a stick as a reminder. If you want to either note my Talk page or send me an email after 5 pm Eastern time I can look into it. If you've got timestamps, even better. :) Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I just checked my version of Gattaca and the silver medal is not specified to be Olympic (0:28:22), and the samples are stated to be for "two lifetimes" (1:36:40). Nofearnolimits (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nofearnolimits. Strebe (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to the title?

The letters g a t c are used to denote sequences in the DNA strands

Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

218.215.211.157 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC) James Selleck

It’s in the last paragraph of the lead: The name is based on the initial letters of the four DNA nitrogenous bases: guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine.

User:Hgrosser wants the repetitive “The name is based on the initial letters G, A, T, and C of the four DNA nitrogenous bases: guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine,” on the basis of 218.215.211.157 having expected to find it but missing it. This is poor editing. The article doesn’t exist for people to find what they expect. It exists to inform people. Anyone who had actually read the paragraph rather than breeze over it looking for their favorite factoid would in fact learn where the movie got its name. People are always asking “How come blah blah blah isn’t here?” when it is. See [12] for another one yesterday in an article I curate. It’s common and doesn’t need to be accommodated. Strebe (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)