Talk:Pandorum

Spec script?

In the first sentence of the production section, it says Travis Milloy "wrote a spec script in which...". Could someone clarify for me what a "spec script" is? Spartan198 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2010 llashhs

• A "spec script" is like a "spec build". It's a script written before anyone has the wherewithal to make the film, in the hope that it will be picked up by a studio or a backer later. "Spec" in this case is short for "speculative". (By the by, a spec build, in the building trade is a form of business in which a building company buys land, builds a house on the land, then sells the house). 124.168.9.200 (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Space Siege

Plot wise, I find this film very similar to the game "Space Siege". Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Wesker (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the film, much better than most, probably because of the european production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.24.158.204 (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Cung Le

Cung Le has just confirmed on Inside MMA that he will star in this film.

please do not delete this information from the cast list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.60.123 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I found an article from The Hollywood Reporter that verifies his casting, and I've included it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Resources to use

Resources to use. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pandorum Scares Up WonderCon
• WC 09: Pandorum Details Emerge
• Pandorum Videos
• Dennis Quaid Interview at AMCtv.com

None of those links add anything overly useful to the article. They may be good, reliable sites, but that doesn't automatically mean that they have any place as external links. Wikipedia articles should not contain a collection of links just for the sake of it. magnius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why they're here. :) I just put the AMC link here so it could be incorporated into the article body whenever an editor is available and willing to do so. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pandorum psychosis

Edited description of Pandorum in the plot synopsis to "which can be brought about by being in deep-space hibernation for extended periods of time, and is triggered to an uncontrollable level by intense emotional trauma.". Whereas it previously stated "brought about by being in deep-space for extended periods of time". Dialogue between between Bower/Payton and Payton/Gallo specifically states that the hibernation process for extended periods can cause it, not simply being in deep space, and also makes mention of intense emotional trauma triggering it to psychotic and uncontrollable levels [also referenced in the loss of Earth being the trigger for Gallo's extreme case of Pandorum]. I can't make an explicit quote without a transcript or viewing the film again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.247.169 (talk • contribs) 04:10, September 28, 2009

Inconsistent Numbers

I saw the movie recently and swear they said there were 160,000 people on board (not counting frozen embryos), though only a small portion of those survive to the end. The trailer however says 60,000 passengers... though it also says 500 MILLION miles from earth. I guess if anyone else can confirm, or wait until the DVD comes out we can get the correct figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.59.87 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

60,000 vs 16,000 passengers

One of the trailers list the number at 16,000, but in the movie the character, Payton, says there 16,000. MPA 23:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

I know right? byo (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Payton does say 60,000, not 16,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.79.129 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mass Hallucination Theory

On 4chan's /tv/ board someone posted a theory that the survivours were suffering from mass-pandorum, and that the monsters were brought about by the psychosis. Viewing through the film again, this theory seems to hold up. Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact proof that was offered, but it seems a valid piece of information that should be added. However I'm not going to do so, so if someone feels that it merits attention, please add it. It adds an interesting perspective on the film. Then again, it IS 4chan, so maybe some of you may not want it on the page. Just thought it merited some attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.108.147 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody anywhere ever ever cares what 4chan thinks. HalfShadow 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That was rude and uncalled for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.181.248 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the suggestion. We cannot include the theory unless it is backed by a reliable source, though. It's not just limited to 4chan, but any forum because anyone can speculate anything about a given topic. Erik (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the plot summary as it is currently has plenty of speculation. Won't hurt to add some more.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has seen 'The Descent' will know that this film is very similar in plot.. but in The Descent there is a very deliberate implied subplot about the events shown were in fact a delusion.. which is similarly done at the end of this film with the main character firing his weapon at a mutant emerging from a wall only to find there couldn't possibly be one coming out from the panel. It is a valid observation if the viewer wishes to consider it.--MRNasher (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV (etc), people. Chill. You can talk about your theory here on the talk page, but you can't toss insults like that. In the article itself, one would need academic-quality sources for such statements. -143.215.97.131 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This came up again. The Dec 17 version implies that the entire thing is revealed as a mass hallucination whenever Bower fires his weapon. Then in the next paragraph it says drowning the mutated creatures, obviously contradicting itself. I'm not sure we can really know if all the creatures were hallucinations, but I don't see ruling out some of them being hallucinations and others being real. Eric Urban (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to sort out the timeline...

Anyone have any hypotheses on when Gallo may have performed his "task". I would assume pretty early on to give the Hunters longer to have mutated, and I recall Gallo being of Flight Team 4; if flight teams switch duty every two years, this would mean the years that Flight Team 4 could have been in active duty would have been 2182, 2190, 2198, 2206, 2214, 2222, 2230, 2238, 2246, 2254, 2262, 2270, 2278, 2286, and 2294. At the same time, though, Gallo knows the fate of the Elysium and so therefore he could have been awake in 2297 (although could have certainly figured it out later). -- Somarinoa (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

there's also a flight team 5 and they never say how many teams there are so your timeline is off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.107.44 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong number

In the article it says "the hull breach causes the ship's computer to initiate an emergency evacuation, finally ejecting the remaining 1213 hibernating and un-mutated crew members". There is a small, but nevertheless definitive error. The final scene says "TANIS YEAR ONE POPULATION 1213...", which obviously includes Bower and Nadia. That means that during the emergency evacuation the remaining 1211 hibernating crew members are ejected, putting the total (with Bower and Nadia, who already are at the surface, we have the 1213 people shown in the final scene). That's why I will correct the number in the article. --78.54.121.89 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It does say "1,211 Life pods active" right after Gallo is hit by the water, so I think the 1,213 in the end actually includes Bower and Nadia as well. Bonus: right under that it says "Total: 60,000." So there's that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.93.14 (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First I thought 1213 is only a connection, as described in "Connection with other Works". As it said in the movie 1211 Life pods active(on the ships screen). But that is before Nadia and Bower enter theirs. So actually 1211 Life pods with 1210 living people where active at the first moment, until Bower and Nadia reached the Bower life Pod(number 1211). Making it then totally 1212 people.

But this explanation was wrong ,as if would be more logic, that only closed life pods can be activated. 1211 were closed(not including bowers one) that moment, as probably life pods only get activated if a human is inside. If they work that way the number 1213 is right because Bowers life pod was then number 1212 and got ejected before the other ones(including Nadia and Bower inside) so 1213 is right, because first Bowers was ejected and then the 1211 others.

--N00bh4ck3r (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception

Any reason the IMDB score isn't mentioned? It has a current rating of 6.9/10 with 30k+ votes. I've noticed IMDB scores aren't used in a lot of film wiki pages, is there a reason? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1188729/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muleattack (talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Muleattack. According to the film article guidelines, "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Erik (talk | contribs) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks :) Muleattack (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

False Credits

The article currently lists various actors, producers etc. who are NOT in the film.

It even states it was narrated by Morgan Freeman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.15.22 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Help

I just watched this movie.

1. How and why did Gallo end up back in hypersleep at the beginning of the movie?

2. The scene showing the other captain ejecting thee pods into space had them shooting off in all directions. Shouldn't a bunch of the passengers have been launched directly into the sea bed below the ship, reducing the 1211 number?

3. Why are the escape pods not waterproof if they are designed to operate in the vacuum of space.

4. If there are only 16,000 passengers, is that really enough to support the hunters for 1,000 years? There must have been hundred of them in the movie. Seems like they would have long since eaten all the passengers

5. Remember the guy who woke up from Hypersleep and was immediately eaten? Oh man, that's a terrible way to go.

6. WHAT HAPPENED TO EARTH?

7. So basically everyone in the movie at some point begins to show signs of Pandorum. Its so terrible and yet so commmon... the scientists really should have figured out how to deal with that.

8. The ship has been operating for 923 years, and the only guy on the ship qualified to fix the reactor happens to wake up a couple of hours before it's going to irrevocably shut down?

9. I hope our space ships have better windshields than the one on the Elyssium. Really? You're going to catastrophically fail because of that little plate?

10. Shortly after they all surface, you miss the part where all of the passengers get the bends and die from changing pressure so quickly.

Sadly, though, I actually enjoyed this movie. 192.91.172.36 (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Pandorum is probably more realistic and has less errors than most mainstream movies lol. Wayne (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

3. The one with our heros was cracked in the fight. Space vessels don't need to be pressure proof the same way as submarines. You keep pressure in, not out. Also, the pressure difference and therefore the forces are much smaller. So the better question is why would they be (deep) water proof. Presumably a water landing was planned or at least prepared for.

4. They were shown sleeping, possibly hibernating.

10. The ship would have matched pressure to Tanis atmosphere. So when does the pressure change dramatically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.76.119 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

3. Water pressure.

4. There was water dripping from the ceiling and algae was growing around the ship. The hunter child was seen feeding some.

7. Only Gallo, Bower, and The hunter's ancestor caught Pandorum and its implied to be rare. 9. Water pressure.

Pandorum and similarities with cabin fever??

I added a brief minor edit in the plot sequence to Pandorum bieng similar to cabin fever. I hope that both things seem related, what does everyone else think. Megatonman (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Devolution?!??!?

"The ship's log finishes compiling the total running time of the trip and the 123-year mission is shown to have been going on for 923 years, revealing that the Hunters are not mutated passengers as they thought, but devolved descendants of them."

How does the 923 year log reveal that the hunters are devolved descendants? This assertion conflicts with the rest of the plot summary that indicates that it was a combination of gallo's sick games, and the enzyme that sped up evolution that caused them to mutate into the hunters. Also the hunters don't resemble human ancestors so the theory doesn't even make sense, not to mention that according to the TOE the notion of devolution is logically impossible.

"He had then awakened some of the passengers to play devious games with them by sending out those who had obeyed his will into the hold of the ship to fight each other and feed on the corpse of the fallen" & "While he slept the passengers had, over time, adapted to their animalistic living conditions by becoming the primitive creatures that now roam the ship. Nadia theorizes that the passengers mutated due to an enzyme that was given to them in their feeding tubes that was intended to accelerate evolution so that their bodies may adapt to living conditions on Tanis, but instead have adapted to the ship."

I'm going to strike that last little quip about devolution because it seems to be wrong, and definitely conflicts with the rest of the plot summary. I apologize if I am mistaken. 207.161.173.120 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)me?

Understanding The Plot

This is for people who keep trying to change the plot summary to that non-sense about him thinking that he was God. It's blatantly obvious that he created the hunters on purpose. It's greatly implied in his dialogue at the end of the film. Read my analysis on it in the link below. http://commentaryandcritiquing.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html — Preceding unsigned 07:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I moved your new section to the bottom where it belongs. You can add new sections on talk pages by clicking on the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Furthermore, you can sign by typing -- ~~~~ at the end of your post.

You seem rather new to Wikipedia, so I suggest familiarizing yourself with the guidelines listed in WP:FIVE, especially WP:NOR and WP:V: Your personal interpretation is considered "original research" here, and cannot be used as a reference for edits, unless you can back it up with reliable sources. "It's (blatatly or not) obvious", "it's implied" and "I'm sure it is like this" are key signs of original research. Self-published articles (on the internet or in book form) are not reliable sources.

Not doing so will have your edits challenged. (not only by me ;-) Sticking to the rules will make your life a lot easier. But this shouldn't keep you from editing. Be bold.

Wikipedia is not about what's obvious, or "the truth", but what's verifiable fact. In this case, for example, what's not mentioned explicitly in the dialogue, cannot count towards a character's motivation. I suggest you re-read the dialogue transcript of "Pandorum", which can be found on the internet. This, in absence of a final shooting script, would be the source to go for the plot summary. I'll have a look at the plot summary as well when I find the time to find and read the script. Again, "it's implied" is a no-no.

Oh, and be polite. Writing "that non-sense" is not acceptable, no matter how you feel about it. -- megA (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://fieldingonfilm.com/wp/travis-milloy-writer-pandorum/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pandorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091031105704/http://www.bbfc.co.uk:80/website/Classified.nsf/ClassifiedWorks/8EC74EB0656FEC5C802576390033C2CA to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/ClassifiedWorks/8EC74EB0656FEC5C802576390033C2CA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206125925/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i431ca797a370fbb2a3ea2b9931986666 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i431ca797a370fbb2a3ea2b9931986666

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lovecraftian?

Should this really be called Lovecraftian horror? I mostly like Lovecraft, and I mostly like the movie, but it doesn't really seem to me to be focused on any of the major themes or motifs I would associate with Lovecraft such as misanthropy, the cosmic insignificance of man, miscegenation/racism, horrifying aliens, ultimately unknowable mysteries, etc. It kind of skates around some of these things but it seems like a stretch to me. 73.227.130.209 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of stuff gets called Lovecraftian. It's unsourced, so we could remove it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Contributed to bankcruptcy"

The claim made in the article that Pandorum "led to the bancruptcy" of Overture Films is pure nonsense. a.) It would be the first case in the history of cinema where a company goes bankrupt just from distributing a film, not from producing it, b.) Overture Films was still releasing a number of films over a year after Pandorum, and c.) the source given for that statement doesn't include or support that statement in the least. The given source only mentions in passing that Pandorum was one of the better-known films put out by Overture Films. --93.223.194.254 (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on what book? Author's name?

I read this case basedcon a book with sequels, but am unable to locate this info now 2601:204:0:F370:7946:3745:B146:1BDA (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)