![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The wikipedia article describes the caseworkers as 'Angels', but in reality, the movie never actually confirms this, and rather it hints they are in fact demons. It portrays the caseworkers (for the most part) as 'the bad guys'. And also you wouldn't expect Angels to be sporting back suits (let alone the riot gear worn by some of them). But most importantly there are several references to them losing their power when surrounded by water, which is something usually associated with Demons rather than Angels. So it would seem that them being Angels is simply a presumption stemming from a question raised early in the movie, whereas logically the evidence suggests that they are in fact Demons.
For me one of the overriding themes was that in fact the universe is not that unambiguous and that the "caseworkers" were *neither* angel nor demon - their motives are clearly not entirely malicious, nor entirely benign. 178.15.151.163 ( talk) 10:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing in the bio suggests involvement with films or relationship to Isa Hackett (which I've assumed was probable). I think there is a need for a disambiguation page or an addition to Hackett's article. Refrigerator Heaven ( talk) 06:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Executive Producer and Associate Producer using http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/fullcredits as reference. Wanted to reference this for Infobox source of information but didn't know how to add the reference without messing up appearance. Refrigerator Heaven ( talk) 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC) a rip off of the matrix 74.70.233.68 ( talk) 16:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section on copyright, which appears to be OR and is virtually unreadable. john k ( talk) 02:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(out)There's a copyright dispute now. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/philip-k-dick-estate-files-suit. Remarkabley, the estate is suing despite the story being one of over 20 stories which entered the US public domain on January 1, 1983 because of failure to renew the copyrights with nonexistent works of the same titles having copyrights "renewed" in 1983 as works published in 1955. Refrigerator Heaven ( talk) 13:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Saw an interview with Nolfi and he said some interesting things about the development of the film. There are a few things he said I'm hoping to find mentioned online in other interviews, I've found some sources that say similar things but I'm hoping to find more. Don't read the rest of it this if you don't want to know more about the film yet.
As I find more sources I'll try to add this in where relevant. -- Horkana ( talk) 01:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
not to reveal him - HER. The Chairman is a her, very important. Also needs to be changed in the below from the main article: Moreover, the figure in the movie known as the Chairman is God,[20] while his caseworkers are angels.[7][8]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.241.64 ( talk) 12:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
To 188.221.241.64 just above: "not to reveal him - HER". Evidence against this is contained specifically in the film dialogue, "the chairman has many other names.../much later/...him, or her, the chairman appears in many forms...". This same dialogue-used-as-evidence disproves the claim that "...Moreover, the figure in the movie known as the Chairman is God,..." [from the article]. As well, the claim that the caseworkers ARE angels is also shown, in dialogue, as false. "Some of you call us [that/angels]. Consider us as caseworkers, making sure everything goes according to [the] plan". Also, consider since we see the caseworkers need to wear hats in order to use the "substrate", cannot read "your decision trees" near (apparently large) bodies of water nor during a rain and that they must walk or run - not float nor fly (without even any regard to whether or not 'wings' are necessary for these 'beings' to move about) - they are merely as we are, bi-pedal in their walking, more likely they are fallen angels, than full angels (my latitude here is based on movie angel lore, if you will pardon the expression). Bands-of-neon ( talk) 21:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
How do we know that the beginning of the film takes place in 2006? 75.69.129.180 ( talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Although this movie is derived from a story by Dick, there seem to be few if any elements that allow its categorization as science fiction. It relies on a metaphysical exploration of a possible higher power that has nothing to do with technology, science or an alternate reality based on our knowledge of our own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.133 ( talk) 11:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
A bit of both SciFi and Fantasy. You have the technology of the Black covered "Team", you have the fantasy and alternate reality of the substrate, the fiction of needing to wear hats and not being able to hear "Desicion trees'. The technology - today's in fact - of Decision Trees. And then there is The Plan books, kind of iPad-ish, folding, electronic booklets that are constantly showing the caseworkers up-to-the-minute decisions being made and about to be made. I don't think you can much more both Fantasy and SciFi than that - unless of course, in the director's cut, he reveals The Chairman. And then, if the Chairman lets loose some sort of particle beam, at least we'll know where we stand - if we are still allowed to stand. In any case we'll "have him right where he wants us" (Admiral J.T.K.) Bands-of-neon ( talk) 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought the caseworkers were demons and the Chairman was Satan for alot of the movie up until the ending. I mean the bureaucratic and threatening nature of these guys and their tendency to constantly interfere with people's free will reminded me alot of The Screwtape Letters. Hasn't anyone suggested this sort of negative interpretation? -- Nerd42 ( talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this is our place "to say", as it is the Talk page.
SPOILER ALERT: I think if we look at the dialogue (we can't really use the book for dialogic evidence, as this article is about the movie), we hear from 'caseworker', "the chairman appears in many forms', I agree that statement is ambiguous. However, much mention of "according to plan", and "the plan"...they don't belabor the details of the plan (so if 'the devil is in the details' can be used as a point, this movie stays far away from details unless absolutely necessary - hence not much devil there) and how often do we hear the phrase "His Plan"; is this not always in film, lit, religion attributed to God. I have not heard the phrase attributed to the Devil - we may be familiar with the phrase "It's the Devil's work!". Well work isn't a plan, so to speak. Also, when listening to Terrence Stamp's (Thompson, The Hammer) speech, the devil is not even hinted at, instead he tells us that it is us who have caused our misery, that we have been given many chances in controlling our own destiny without any help. As far as interference from the angels, one could argue this to be 'the chairman's' wrath - just toned down a bit - after all it is The Hammer who causes the ankle injury, "it's just a sprain..."; could be worse? Maybe. But, THAT is what we don't see, the worst. Even the Taxi 'accident' doesn't kill anyone. Also, as far as the corporate structure is concerned, isn't that just another "form" of appearance? The trappings of "holding office"? Bands-of-neon ( talk) 21:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I know that someone is going to want to put that silly comment back, and I won't get into an edit war over it, but hear me out, because there's speculation and interpretation, and then there's just plain "hit us over the head with the concept until we realize it." The movie simply leaves no ambiguity at all over who the Chairman is. He's a being who writes plans for the entire universe, as well as every individual, and who has the ability to grant or take away free will. Who the heck do we think they're talking about? Is there any room for an alternate explanation? Saying that this is speculation is like saying people have "speculated" that Citizen Kane was referring to his sled. Minaker ( talk) 17:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused, because I don't see any relation at all between my argument and synthesis as Wikipedia defines it. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm not doing that at all. What multiple sources? I'm not saying "A and B, therefore C," I'm saying, A says this, so A is A. If A then A. My argument that the concept of speculation does not apply has nothing to do with multiple sources, only common sense. Minaker ( talk) 00:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Doniago, please understand that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm just asking for clarification. Thanks! Minaker ( talk) 00:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is someone saying "I" in the reception section ? ("I suspect the filmmakers were...) Wikipedia is not meant for contributors to have opinions...
My mistake, sorry... The inverted commas are all the same instead of being smaller and bigger for beginning of sentences and quotes inside other quotes so I missed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.217.33 ( talk) 13:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
why is there way more information available for all films at any movie website, than on wikipedia?
this and all films are lacking much of the type of information below:
The Adjustment Bureau
2011PG-13106 minutes
A congressman (Matt Damon) who's a rising star on the political scene finds himself entranced by a beautiful ballerina (Emily Blunt), but mysterious circumstances ensure that their love affair is predestined to be a non-starter. Screenwriter George Nolfi (The Bourne Ultimatum) makes his directorial debut with this romantic adaptation of Philip K. Dick's classic sci-fi short story "Adjustment Team."
Cast:Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, Terence Stamp, John Slattery, Michael Kelly, Anthony RuivivarDirector:George NolfiGenres:Romantic Movies, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Sci-Fi ThrillersThis movie is considered:Exciting, Romantic, Feel-good/Availability:DVD and Blu-ray .
--- each film should have the official synopsis(even if this particular official synopsis is extremely vague and written poorly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This movie has been involved in at least three lawsuits about copyright and fraud. It's not neutral to ignore them and omissions can also be undue weight. Ask Tom Sawyer if whitewash is heavy. 199.250.57.231 ( talk) 01:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Surely there should be a reference to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2locp7EDAw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 ( talk) 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a mention of the similarity to (or inspiration by?) Asimov's short story The End of Eternity? The page for the story has a link to this one, but I wonder if some critic mentioned it sometime in 2011/2012? Jimw338 ( talk) 22:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
The Adjustment Bureau. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia category for the sort of "travel" through doors used in this movie? Could we put that category on "The Adjustment Bureau" article and on the " There Are Doors" article and other articles that mention this sort of travel, analogous to the " category: time travel in fiction" category used for another kind of travel? -- 70.177.124.19 ( talk) 01:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)