Talk:In Time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ongoing plot-similarities discussion[edit]

Listen, in the world of writing - whether it be screenplays, novels, novellas, short stories, comicbooks, or the small print on the side of a cup of Starbucks coffee - ideas get borrowed, reused, and recycled. Star Wars, third highest grossing film series ever, borrowed heavily from thousands of different sources (Blade Runner, Mad Max, Alien, Arthurian tales -- just to name a few). The fact that In Time bears a striking resemblance to a hundred short fiction novels or Penthouse stories or whatever isn't encyclopedic or relevant. 64.253.217.55 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the following probably doesn't fit article/Wikipedia guidelines:

Sorry to interrupt, but that's a completely bogus argument. The old saw "there is nothing new under the sun" (which itself is a falsehood perpetuated by people attempting to justify intellectual theft) doesn't justify plagiarism. There's a difference. And next time you decide to generate a list of examples, make sure they're relevant: Blade Runner (1982), Mad Max (1979), and Alien (1979) were released after Star Wars (1977), not before, so Star Wars could hardly have cribbed ideas from them. And Star Wars's relationship to Arthurian legend is tenuous and vague, and only extends to very general structures of myth-telling. Anytime a work of fiction bears a "striking resemblance" to another work of fiction is a time to question why, how, and whether legal compensation is required. It's also not cool to rearrange or retitle elements on the talk page to further your own agenda. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars was a lazy tick-box exercise in script writing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To live forever" (1956)[edit]

It also sounds very similar to the Jack Vance Novel "To live forever". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Live_Forever_%28novel%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Repent, Harlequin" (1965) related notes (which is already mentioned in the article)[edit]

And also to the concept in the short story "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. --68.228.12.6 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Momo" (1973)[edit]

Did anyone notice the striking similarity to Michael Ende's Momo? First published in 1973, it came later than some stories mentioned here, but predates others. Just a small excerpt from the plot: "The Men in Grey are parasites stealing the time of humans. These strange individuals present themselves as representing the Timesavings Bank and promote the idea of 'timesaving' among the population". Zuckerberg (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also heavily reminded of this movie. I'm not sure if it's worth adding to the article. DerPaul (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Time Is Money" (1975) (that Playboy published short story)[edit]

The plot is also similar to a short story published in Playboy in the late 70's (I think). I can't remember the title (it might be "Time's Up), but in the story, set in the future, a man accidentally gives almost of his time away to a prostitute, while under the influence of drugs/alcohol). In this story, you can use your hand like a debit card, and apply your time credits towards your purchase either by speaking the amount and payee of the transaction. This story also made reference to the extremely rich, who could live in perpetuity, because of their stockpiles of cash. The man frantically spends the last few hours trying to find someone to give or loan him some "Time". No one truly believes the predicament he's in, thinking that he's just running a scam. This is similar to the impression that many people have of street beggars. Eventually his time literally runs out when a tiny explosive device goes off in his head, triggering some sort of brain aneurysm. The man is left dead, lying on the sidewalk.Afarkas (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story Afarkas is trying to remember is "Time Is Money", by Lee Falk. I believe it was first published in Playboy in 1974 or 1975. The plot of this film sounds very nearly identical. 71.200.89.119 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in December 1975, and I agree that it seems a lot more similar to the movie than "'Repent, Harlequin!'" Here's a link: http://mandrake-comics.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html 130.64.189.127 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up! I've been trying to find this story for months now.Afarkas (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Logan's Run" (1976)[edit]

What about Logan's Run? 173.57.170.151 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Price of Life" (1987)[edit]

This movie sounds very, very similar to "Price of Life": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366919/ -- I've not found a direct link yet, though I was figuring it was the short film concept post development hell. 173.163.172.65 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Thank you! I was trying for years to remember what was the name of this short film. I came here to ask. Wikipedia delivers. 46.116.18.151 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IS a remake of "Price of Life" http://vimeo.com/16265933 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.176.241 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!! I've been looking for "The Price of Life" with Dustin Diamond on the Internet since I got online. I saw a brief clip of it on Showtime back in the early 90's. And here it is on Vimeo: [1] Justin R (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, came here looking for info about Price of Life! I'm glad I checked out the discussion area! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.194.144 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also came looking for data about The Price of Life and am glad I found it here in the discussion thread. Thank you to all who provided data regarding such. I did not recall the title, only that I had seen it many years ago on PBS. After checking the Vimeo link I was able to determine that such was the movie I recalled. Odd that there seems to be no mention of it on the In Time article page. Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the only Chanticleer Films short film ruined when recast as a full-length Hollywood production, their 1990 12:01PM was also remade as the 1993 film 12:01. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Price of Life had a more altruistic motivation than the unacknowledged remake: the protag trying to save his mother's life; rather than selfishly saving his own skin. Perhaps they felt society had moved on from such selfless concerns.
I remember an earlier version of the current article which included an explicit reference to In Time being a rip-off of The Price of Life. The article The Price of Life itself includes such an argument within its text; so why does this article now relegate it to the See also section?
Nuttyskin (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Pageview stats are a little inaccurate, but they still give an estimate. The consensus here is that the film is now the primary topic for this title, and as such, it has been moved from In Time (film) to In Time. I've moved In time to In time (disambiguation) to minimise confusion, and added a hat note to the top of the article, as well as update the wikilinks for articles that were referring to the album. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In Time (film) → In Time – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Besides the compilation album that is a partial title match and two redlinks, this is the only article with this title. Not opposed to having In time (no caps) not redirecting to In Time. See also: Hall Pass, Limitless. Marcus Qwertyus 22:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Only by a mechanical application of policy and guidelines, blind to the actual needs of readers, could such a move begin to make sense. Nothing would be gained by dropping the qualifier, and immediate utility – in making the meaning clear – would be lost. Why even assume, in this case, that there is a "primary topic"? How does it help, to find that there is one? (Those seemingly parallel titles that are mentioned need review also.) NoeticaTea? 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY per Noetica. It should remain disambiguated. Further, if you apply WP:PRECISE, then In Time: The Best of R.E.M. 1988–2003 should be called In Time so would be the article that would occupy the undisambiguated form since the extended title is a form of disambiguation. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per non-mechanical application of WP:PRECISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's very clear that large numbers of readers are searching for the film and winding up on a dab page, where they must click through to get where they want. Beginning in July, pageviews of the dab page spiked from a few hundred per month to several thousand per month to 34,000+ this month so far. The REM compilation album has been constantly in the 5,000 range except for a spike in late Sept bring it to over 9,000. So most people on the dab page clearly don't want the album. Meanwhile, the film had 50,000 to 150,000 views per month thru Sept and over 200,000 so far this month. If actual needs of readers are our concern, as they should be, and if one investigates how they may best be served in this case, anywhere from 27,000 to 34,000 readers have been inconvenienced from 1 Oct - 23 Oct due to the current set up. When the film opens in a few days this number will only increase. Station1 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Station1's analysis of readers most likely looking for this topic; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clear on this. We want to make sure readers get to where they want to go. Claims of being "blind to the actual needs of readers" are groundless. Comparing this to this makes it abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of readers are having to go through the disambiguation page to get to the film article. A hatnote is sufficient on the film article to point to the other pages. Lastly, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is not applicable here. We are using endorsed tools to help determine the primary topic, and the term "In time" or "In Time" is not one that has primary importance, which can be a factor with situations like The Day the Earth Stood Still vs. its remake The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with the thorough analysis from Station and Erik. Their arguments have convinced me that the film is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Always drop a disambiguator if you can. The whole idea of article titling is the title should be the actual common name of the thing, assuming that doesn't interfere with some other title. No significant number of readers are typing "In Time (film)" as a search term.[2] Kauffner (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Soilent Green[edit]

Could it be possible there are a bunch of parallels between "in time" and "soylent green"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.124.98 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any, excepting that they're both dystopian films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:d:6880:f580:3883:54dc:6bab:5a42 (talk)

Skyline at the end of the film?[edit]

Does anyone happen to recognize the skyline in the background at the end of the film? It certainly isn't downtown LA. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

A sportscar about the cost of 1.000.000$ is about the same cost 59 years of time in the movie. Thinking about someone earning about 3.90 a day (which is pretty common today in some countries) makes exactly the cost of 59 reasonable. This is kind of shocking... http://slaveryfootprint.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.15.104 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

date of film[edit]

  • On 6 November 2011, an anonymous editor added the unsourced 2161 date to the article.
  • The official trailer shows years ticking by, through 2063 before they fade from view.
  • The trailer shown at Comic-Con says "In the late 21st century, time has replaced money as the unit of currency."
  • The oldest person born with a clock—and mentioned in the film—is 110 years old.

I could not find any source—older than when 2161 was added here—that gives a date. So it's possible that other sites got 2161 from us. Based on the trailers and the film itself, the film could be set 110 years from now, or at least 110 years from 2063, but 2161 does not seem to come from the film. —MJBurrage(T•C) 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago when this film was in theaters I edited it to include Category:Films set in the future, assuming then that it was set in an intentionally impossible to specify "future". Now I read 2169 in the article and searches suggest the date was taken from press releases, but I can't seem to find anything other than film reviews. A similar search for 2161 like the above turns up that date as well and I wonder what other dates might turn up in searches. I'm not one to favor an overly strict action of deleting the date - I'm sure 2169 is correct and the article is better for listing it - but would like to know where that date came from, and from there it could be listed as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.211.31 (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic[edit]

If there a limited amount of "time" (money), and new "time" can't be create, and "time" is wasted (unlike money which is transferred between owners), eventually all "time" will run out. Galzigler (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen the movie for the first time – since a person is getting a free year when he becomes 25, there is no problem. Btw, the clock looks like the Nazi number tattoos, isn't it? It quite fits to the capitalistic atmosphere in movie. Galzigler (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The movie never says that "there is a limited amount of time"; we only see society from the point of view of a poor person. It's possible that an agency somewhere is creating new time (minting more money) that is carefully withheld, and maybe even kept secret, from all but a privileged few, to help make sure they stay that way. --67.71.99.150 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit[edit]

Is this sentence NPOV? "The suit, naming New Regency and director Andrew Niccol as well as a number of anonymous John Does..." I am not that familiar with English language, but in that case "a number of anonymous John Does" seems to me a bit too stretched to be included in an encyclopaedia. --MarcelloPapirio (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1[edit]

Note 1 says the following: "It is not actually a full year. When the countdown starts, it switches from 1 year to 51 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 mins and 59 seconds, which equals only 364 days."

That's not correct. 51 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds is closer to 365 days than to 364. It is 99.9999968% of one year, whereas 364 days is 99.726%. One is within about 1/31,000,000th of a year; the other is only within 1/365th. 51 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds is not "only 364 days". If I were one of the characters in this film, the difference between the two ratios could be the difference between life and death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2016

There are 7 days in a week. So 52 x 7 = 364. – Station1 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Time and monetary reform[edit]

There is a striking similarity between the dystopia described in the movie and concerns raised by monetary reformers.

I would not go so far as mention that in this article but Wikipedia should properly inform the reader about money being more than banknotes since most money out there is electronic and originally created as credit.--JamesPoulson (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Time&oldid=1220696641"