Talk:Never Let Me Go (2010 film)

Miss Lucy's departure

The article in current form says, "The following day this teacher is 'no longer working at Hailsham'. It is not revealed whether she was fired or if something more sinister happened to her."

I think it is a mistake to suspect any foul play in the disappearance of Miss Lucy. I have only seen the movie, not read the book, but clearly this is not Michael Crichton's "Coma": what goes on at Hailsham, and in the entire organ donation program, is clearly above board and an accepted national policy, not covert or underhanded. This reality is, in fact, what gives the story such power!

Aside from this fact, it should be considered a), that the students, once they come of age, are indeed fully informed of their "purpose" in life, and their inevitable fate, and b), that of all the institutions involved in the program, Hailsham was apparently the only one to question the ethics of the donor program.

FYI, I haven't made the edit because I haven't read the book. Convit (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Three points

1. H is Cathy's full last name, not an initial and so doesn't take a period.
2. While the children were tricked into never leaving school grounds with scary stories and lack of knowledge of the outside world, they weren’t physically detained as such.
3. There's no indication that something sinister might have happened to Miss Lucy. They kicked her out, that's all. SlightSmile 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your second point... what about those things they wore on their wrists, that beeped when they brushed them on that thing on the wall? Looked to me like they had some kind of electronic tracking things on them to keep track of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.189.152 (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Never Let Me Go (2010 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• "played by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield." could add a "respectively" to clarify position.

done

• "It opened the 54th London Film Festival." This sentence seems brusque and dislodges the prose and lovely flow of the previous sentences, try incorporating it into another.

done

• "Onscreen"... "on-screen".

done

• Kiera Knightly is appallingly misspelt! Keira Knightley is her name. Sheesh.

done

• Link to Hailsham. Links for the plot section have been noted below...

done

• "...our relationship to our own mortality" their relationship.

done

• In themes the "she explains" reads like a news story, the sentence is fine without it.

done

• "said Macdonald and Reich" again news story

done

• "The script for the film is 96 pages long, done in chapters." Was. We are speaking past tense here.

done

• "Never Let Me Go.[7] Never Let Me Go" x2 doesn't look good.

done

• "Many of the scenes in the film feature a certain tree – which Location Manager Josh Yudkin predicts will become famous." Could be either ref or remove that, because it almost seems like vandalism without a source...

It actually is lol. I've removed it.

• "Her work on Never Let Me Go earned her a San Diego Film Critics Society Award for Best Score." Needs a ref.

done

• Remove the appalling image of Andrew Garfield being interviewed that is taken at an bad and odd angle from an old telly.

done

• Ref 15's date is incorrectly formatted. As is 41.

I've fixed 15. I'm not sure what's wrong with ref 41. I think you meant ref 40 (which I've also now fixed)

• Ref 48 doesn't have a retrieved date.

done

Overall notes

• The summary contains information that is referenced below but that are not provided in the summary, try taking a few references from sentences underneath and plugging them into the main.

But aren't plot sections allowed to be unsourced.......

• The plot section contains only one link and looks about as barren as the film was! Try bluing it up with the cast members hyperlinks. Looking further, the Themes and Box office sections need some linkage too.

lol done

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): -->

   Prose is fab, really brilliantly written, but needs a few changes here and there for MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): --> b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some references need format changes, but everything else is okay.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Perfic'.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Perfic'

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Perfic'.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Perfic'. Except remove the detrimental Andrew Garfield screenshot image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a brilliant article and it was a good film, with a little work this should make GA no problem.

That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional note: Brilliant! Just one more thing: I was speaking of the summary, not the plot, the very first bit, where it explains the topic. Do that small thing and I'll pass the article. Good work! That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, the lead? I'm quite certain though that there are not suppose to be refs in the lead =/ (sources are suppose to be used in the body of the article as the lead is just a quick summary) Crystal Clear x3 02:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay, well it's passed then. Haha. Grats! That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.189.152 (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Dystopian"? Really?

Maybe for the clones/donors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.244.52 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying that "Hunger Games" isn't dystopian except for the children who are forced to fight to the death. Both novels portray a society where a class of innocent people are deprived of their human rights for the convenience of the rulers. That's dystopian. 2001:558:6011:1:E406:4A65:5CD1:785C (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Does all Fiction have to be Science Fiction?

There's barely a drop of Science in this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:9361:2200:E035:AED0:ED87:453F (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, talk pages are used to discuss about how to improve articles. It's not a forum where you can discuss details about the topic. You can ask reference desk if you have any questions regarding a topic. Best--Chamith (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's set in a kind of alternate world, and since the world is plausible I guess that makes it science fiction rather than fantasy. For me, it seemed that the story of clones was just a plot device to speed up the characters' lives, and the movie was basically about relationships. What if you were young and in love with somebody, but concluded that they didn't want you. Then years later you meet them again and they say how much they were in love with you too? But by then it's too late, you are nearly dead from old age. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction writer Isaac Asimov defined science fiction as a genre focusing on scientific/technological changes and their effects on society. Yes, it's science fiction. 2001:558:6011:1:E406:4A65:5CD1:785C (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead Fails to summarize the film

The lead of this article does not summarize the film, and the plot is so long I could not grasp what the film was about. --Inayity (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)