Talk:Babylon A.D.

Reception

This got a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/babylon_ad/) Facebookery (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on until the movie is released to the public. Five reviews hardly counts for anything. nneonneo ^talk 00:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Name

Not sure why it was the first one I found, but here's a newspaper using the name http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/leisure/cinema/3629338.Babylon_AD/ There was also a link to the Barnes and Noble Babylon Babies entry. (both in the top 10 of a google search)Westrim (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Babylon Babies is not Babylon AD. That a character may be called one thing in the original source does not mean that he has the same name in the film. There is nothing in the film which refers to him by that name. I will re-delete until such time as a reliable in-film source provides the name. Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's just the source material, why would we pay attention to it. He's still the same character, just in a different medium, and thus has the same name, even if no one says it in full- or even if they don't say the name at all, like the Harry Potter series. Check any other book-to-movie conversion. If his last name is the same it follows that his first name is too. Find me a wiki guideline that supports you, or find somewhere that he has a different first name, and I'll reconsider my position.Westrim (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, why should we pay attention to it? Is the film word for word the same as the source? I've fact-tagged the name. Provide a reliable source from the film, if you remove the fact tag without the reliable source, it's vandalism. What guidelines am I following? How about WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYN?

Names change from book to movie all the time, by the way. Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure you knew that and chose to deliberately misinterpret me. If you can find any indication that his name has actually changed, and isn't just in short form, please show it. I gave you a source, one for the movie, right there in my first post, so I'll go ahead and remove your tag- I would provide a primary source, but I haven't seen it in a theater. And don't be silly, no movie is exactly the same as the book, but they almost always keep characters names the same, and in fact, they did here as well (not changing them all the time- I can't think of any occurrence like that where they didn't change the character drastically as well). Your citations don't apply: I have sources (the book and link), I'm not doing OR, and I verified it. To repeat, that they only say his name in short form is no indication that the rest of his name somehow vanished into thin air. Westrim (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing a fact tag without providing a reliable source is vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing a source was provided, then. Westrim (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Corvus, let's cool it with the "vandalism" talk. Everyone here is obviously trying to improve the encyclopedia, you just have a difference of opinion. If you'd like a free WP:3O, the reference (and rationale) supplied by Westrim seems reasonable to me, especially considering the level of importance the character's name has in the grand scheme of things. If this is a big enough deal, there are other things to try. No need to edit war over a fact tag. --barneca (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you do when you know that a source is wrong? Corvus cornix_talk 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess, you provide a reliable source showing that it's wrong. No, really, I'm not being snide; if you think his source is wrong, you must have a reason for it. Bring it up here. --barneca (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The source he is using is referencing the name of the character from the original source, the novel that the movie is based on. Nowhere in the movie is the name he's claiming referenced. He is only called "Toorop", never "Hugo Cornelius Toorop". I can't reference a negative, I can only keep asking for where in the movie he is ever referred to as Hugo Cornelius, but he refuses to answer. Corvus cornix_talk 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are 2 or 3 issues going on.

1. The V word. To me, this is the most important, and why I got involved, though it has the least to do with this article. I'm only guessing, and perhaps my timeline is off, but this might be why Westrim isn't feeling compelled to reply to you any more; telling someone who (by a quick check of their contribs) is a good faith contributor that they're vandalizing is pretty much guaranteed to poison any future discussion. Vandalism is "intentional damage" to the encyclopedia; this ain't that.
2. Movie or book. The way the newspaper article is worded, it seems clear they're talking of the movie. Corvus, it is quite possible you're right, and the author of the article just assumed the name was the same. I haven't seen the movie, I have no idea if the name is ever mentioned. But if all you're basing it on is your watching the movie yourself, isn't that WP:OR? Don't we tell editors all the time, WP is about WP:RS not WP:TRUTH? It applies to real things too, not just freaky fringe theories.
3. Conflict resolution (real world method): Westrim's post of 22:40 seems reasonable to me, he's got a source that seems to back him up, and if I were you Corvus, even if I was sure I was right, I'd just drop it, filed under "choose your battles". Indeed, if I were Westrim, I'd drop it and let you have your way, filed under the same heading.
4. Conflict resolution (Wikipedia method): ask for more opinions here by going to WP:FILM and asking for more eyeballs. Or WP:3O (it would technically be 4O, but no one's going to complain I don't think). Or just wait for a bit; an article about a new movie is bound to have others visit the talk page soon enough.

--barneca (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine I've already been told that Plots don't have to follow WP:V, now requests for sources don't need to be followed. Great. Wikipedia is going into the toilet. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well first, thank you for intervening Barneca. I was busy in the real world, so that's the reason I'm just now coming back here. I won't say anything else as this is apparently resolved. Bye, then.Westrim (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add, I saw the film and in the closing credits they have the character's full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.74.84 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have retitled "Critical reception" to "Insider and public reception"

There was no critical reception information in the section... only insider and public. I don't think that is a Bad Thing... but the name for the section seemed very wrong.

I added IMDB stats. I also added a date, as the numbers will shift.

sinneed (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan Toorop

Is the movie or perhaps the book influenced by subjects in Jan Toorop's paintings. For example, in Babylon Babies, the woman Toorop was escorting was named Marie, but in the movie, her name was Aurora. Is this a reference to Jan Toorop's painting "Aurore", which pictures the mythical godess of the dawn accompanied by an armored knight who stands atop a vanquished beast of darkness? I'm just curious if anyone knows something about this.--68.242.167.9 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Polarized.

An example of "heavily polarized" would be... the 2 largest blocks of votes being 1 (awful) and 10 (excellent). Should I add a citation for the definition of polarized? That seems excessive. sinneed (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, objection to "heavily" seems not inappropriate. I killed it. sinneed (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just stick to the facts instead of adding your own interpretation? 6/10 ratings are a mere .4% behind 0/10. Is that even polarized? Stick to what's actually verifiable, and that is the two largest blocks of voters are either for 0/10 or 10/10. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed user ratings per MOS:FILM#Critical reception. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the rest of the user ratings upon studying Erik's citation. Thank you, Erik.

Pwnage8 - I stuck to the facts. But thank you for your concern. Please see again the definition of "polarized". In any event, the point is moot, as user ratings are not allowed, as I read the Wiki guidance document Eric kindly provided.sinneed (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The reviews you removed are by professional film critics, not users. I'm reverting your change, and if you revert back, it will be considered vandalism. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool down, Pwnage. As noted in a previous section, calling someone clearly trying to improve the article a potential vandal is NOT conducive to a good editing environment. Even aside from that, your conduct has been very abrasive, and I commend Sinneed for ignoring it. Westrim (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me to cool down? You don't even know if I heated up! All I'm doing is looking out for the page by making it as neutral as possible and preventing disruption. Giving out a warning does not mean I assume anything about the editor. We don't want 3RR violations here.. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the wording you use. You may be trying to make the page neutral, but you aren't being neutral in your comments on other editors at all. An editor attempting to improve the article is not a disruption, and their mistakes are opportunities for teaching, not criticism. When you say "if you remove this segment, its vandalism", how is that not confrontational? Since he did remove it (with appropriate justification given in the next section of this page), then by the terms of that statement you now consider him a vandal. Westrim (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're grasping at straws. I clearly stated that the next revert would be considered vandalism, after I gave him an explanation. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What straw? It's inappropriate and unwarranted to say that any edit to a specific section by a specific editor is automatically vandalism, regardless of their reasoning. Westrim (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe if the edit is vandalism. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Which it wasn't. You two may have different opinions, but his reasoning in the next section is sound. Westrim (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at his user talk page. I'll finish reading your discussion there later, but considering that an administrator just granted him the use of a tool specifically used for fighting vandals, your justification for accusing him of vandalism drops to below nil. Westrim (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I explained it to him on his talk page already. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, show me where I accused him of being a vandal. Boy, this will be good. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You told him that if he reverted it again you would consider him a vandal. He did revert it, so by your declaration he was vandalizing. EDIT: Rechecked the timing on the edits flying around I now see that you were referring to your revert at 18:19, not Erik's at 17:37. Sorry for the confusion: however, it is still appropriate to tell a registered editor with no record of vandalism, who you can see was just granted powers to fight vandalism, that any reversion of a section will be considered vandalism. Yes, there's the 3R rule, but you would also have been one step from violating it if Erik didn't intercede and do one of them before you; that and you made no mention of it in your "warning" to Sinneed. Westrim (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How could you think I was talking about Erik's edit? I reverted to his revision. This discussion is over. I want a real apology on my talk page for all the time of mine you wasted by being so careless. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. First, look at my first post in this thread; all of that still applies, you still threatened to call him a vandal, and your conduct has still been not very abrasive. I'm not sure where between that and my next post I got the timing screwed up, but I did- and I have apologized for that. Why should we take this to your talk page? Looking at it, it's already a monument to your rudeness, so I don't see why I need to add yet another example (like, say, declaring a discussion to be over and archiving it without regard to any other ideas on the matter.) Archiving is for old discussions (or ones to be kept as evidence of some violation), not ones you don't want to pursue any further. As for your time, it was yours to waste, not mine; I didn't force you to write any of your responses. Westrim (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a monument to your stupidity. I have never seen anyone screw up so badly on a talk page. And yes, removing professional reviews is vandalism. Funny how you say I'm being rude and you're not. I find it rude that you would jump into a discussion when you don't know what you're talking about and then make claims about how I supposedly am and what I supposedly did. I consider your behaviour rude. And don't tell me that you didn't waste your time either. Most of this debate you had no idea what was being talked about and then you try to act like that never happened. You basically argued with me for no reason. That's called wasting time. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Making a mistake isn't stupid, and I misjudged the timing of everyone's edits, that's all; if that's so bad to you, then you need to get out more. At the time you made your ultimatum, there were questions as to whether they were all professional reviews- and aside from that, making out a long standing editor to be a potential vandal is very rude indeed. I was responding in kind to your rudeness in my responses- I'm afraid I can't wave everything off as humorous like Silheed can. This is Wikipedia; there aren't any rules on entering a conversation in a public forum. Why don't you go nag Erik too- he was "interfering" as well by that standard. As for my time, that's mine to waste, and I find defending people from jerks to be satisfying. And yet again, everything I said in my first post still applies. My mistake, which I've owned up to ever since I realized it (how exactly am I acting like it never happened?), does not change it. Westrim (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's never any question whether Metacritic compiles professional reviews. They obviously do, and whoever would remove them because they are "user reviews" is either a troll or a serious noob who has never looked at movie articles. If you made such a costly mistake, you need to be on Wikipedia more, not throw personal attacks at me. You don't know me, so you can't tell me what I need to do. Warning someone that their edits will be considered vandalism is not rude. It's actually commonplace on Wikipedia. Erik's edits were not disruptive in any way, so I will not follow through on your request to 'nag' him. Although, that seems like something you would love to do. Whatever gave you the idea that I'm a jerk? Be honest... I know you're in the wrong. You have been before. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was question, which Erik cleared up and you ignored in favor of belittlement. The dismissive attitude that you display in your second sentence is a clear example of your narrow-mindedness, assuming that one must either be looking for trouble or completely unfamiliar with the subject to disagree with you. I don't see how my misunderstanding the timing was costly. It happened once to me that someone misunderstood the timing, but they realized it by there next post because I made it clear which post we were speaking about. It was a only a mistake ( and one made by someone who had been editing for two years), so I was quite content to let it go, unlike you; this is the third time you've brought it up. You complain that I am in no position to say what you should do because I don't know you- yet in the previous sentence you told me I need to be on Wikipedia more, despite your not knowing me either. And I know all I need to know about you from the many entries on your talk page. By the way, warning someone that they may be considered a vandal is usually done to people who are... vandalizing (or pressing a point after it was refuted, which it had not been when you said that). Which he was not, just mistaken. You're misunderstanding my statement on Erik; it was in reference to your statement that somehow that you and Sinheed were the original debaters should make you the only debaters. Your actions, both on this topic and the ones recorded on your user talk page, give me the idea that you are a jerk. And yes, I have been wrong before. However, unlike you, I admit it and move on. It's clear from your actions past and present that you will not ever reconsider your attitude, so feel free to respond, but I will not. Bye. Westrim (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no question whether Metacritic should be included or not. And Sinneed was not disagreeing with me, he was disagreeing with Wikipedia gudelines. Straight up. Defending him for doing so does not help one bit. I'm glad you finally quit arguing with me. You already lost a long time ago by being a complete dumbass. It's funny how you're saying I'm a jerk, yet in my one and a half years on Wikipedia, this is the first time someone has said that to me. I keep everything on my talk page, and I hide nothing. But you obviously ignored the more prevalent positive messages that are there to paint a distorted picture of me. That can be done to anyone. You blank all the warnings you get on your talk page. Hmm... that says a lot. If you're not capable of debating something, then you shouldn't be in the debate, period. So then, yes, Sinneed and I should have been the only debaters. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the there was question; the answer may have been so obvious to you as to not require a reply, but Sinneed didn't until Erik explained it (in the Babylon A.D. segment of his talk page). He also didn't know the guidelines he was shown them, so his disagreement was with you until then (and when he was shown the relevant guidelines he quickly read them and and executed them, which lead to the Metacritic/Rotten Tomato disagreement). I'm not sure how making a mistake that I own up to after realizing it makes me a dumbass. I said you were being a jerk because you were- unless saying "a monument to your stupidity" or "Stick to what's actually verifiable," is generally considered to be polite. I looked at the complaints that resembled mine, and the associated edit histories backed them up. And it's easy to get good messages on your talk page if you edit widely enough- even an editor I encountered that had five blocks to their name still had many positive things said about them. And as for my talk page- The "warnings" I blanked were... let's see. One from a sock puppet that was banned less than an hour later, one that took exception to my deleting their unsigned post that look for all the world like a troll, and five that accused me of vandalism for deleting an inaccurate sentence that turned out to be a part of a reference(four from one editor who quickly resorted to swearing and only belatedly mentioned that it was part of a reference, and one who followed her lead without fact checking). Westrim (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought this debate was over already. I just don't care anymore. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was, but after I saw what you called me and what you insinuated about me, I couldn't leave it unanswered. Westrim (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well. I was pissed at the time, and you said you would leave so I guess I went all the way with my last comment :D But yeah, that's cool to be defending yourself and whatnot. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I can understand that. Lets try not to let this old disagreement color our current one, okay? Westrim (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't on my mind at all. I might just go through that paragraph tomorrow and trim it down. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomatometer & Metacritic

Please review the Tomatometer criteria at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics.php. While this is an excellent way for both amateur and professional reviews can be screened for competence... they remain user reviews as I see it. I would defer to, for example, Erik or some other knowledgeable editor of course. One need only be a member of a wide range of accredited critical organizations, rather than a professional. I am removing the RT user rating now. I will investigate the other rating further. sinneed (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For Metacritic, I note that if the reviewer does not assign a rating, the Metacritic staff assign the review one based on the Metacritic staff "overall impression" http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml of the numeric value of the review. Here again, I would defer to someone familiar with the Wiki guidance documents. Are the staff at Metacritic considered a reliable source for these numbers? sinneed (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I realize this movie was next to impossible to follow, but I'm sure someone out there remembers the plot. I really want to know what the movie was about, because I honestly didn't understand it. Paskari (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

me to. the movie lost me at the end. sept 9 2008 11:43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what really confused me, it was those clone tigers...and how she could talk to them. Is she a clone? was that crazy boxer guy a clone? Why was she so sensitive to other people's suffering? What the hell was with the twins? Why did she die in labour? Paskari (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss these things, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. However, I will say that; she didn't talk to the tigers, just stared at them. Also, it could be that since she was designed by a computer, that the pregnancy was timed, and that the kind of kids she would have would be controlled as well. It's a film that forces you to think. Either that, or all the loose ends will be tied up in a sequel. If you still have questions, please seek answers elsewhere, because this isn't the place. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a discussion forum, so we shouldn't talk about how we fealt about the movie, but everything we just talked about should be adressed in the plot/premise section. I do this all the time in the science articles. I discuss things I don't understand, because, more likely than not, my complaints represent the complaints of the majority of the people out there, therefore, they should be addressed. In any case, how should we go about updating the plot section? Is there anywhere we can get some information on this movie? Paskari (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pwnage8, I agree that the segment is too long; I added the tag, after all, and watched in bemusement as the editor that put it there worked. However, keep perspective and realize that most people coming to the page won't know it exists if it isn't there, and I'd much rather have a summary that's too long than nothing at all, not even a heading to show that something should be there. Again, it can't be worked on if it isn't seen. Westrim (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph moved to talk page

In the near future, a Mercenary named Toorop sits in a run down house in Russia and sits at a table preparing to eat a sloppy meal. His house wall is blown in and he is unaffected. As he sits in his seat, a group of fully clad mercenaries run into his house aiming their laser sites at his head and back. Toorop refuses to turn around to face them. A familiar face he met in the mercenary business begins to tell him that he came to get him for a man named Gorsky. Toorop exclaims that he would have come to catch him if he wasn't already killed. He proceeds to grab the mans rifle and tells him that he has neither of two things that can define him in the business. Those being the heart and the balls. He then proceeds to have the rifle shot into the mans head. Killing him and walks out of the wall in his shack.

Afterward, Toorop is seen getting into a tank outside his home. He sits across from Gorsky and looks him in the face and then has a discussion while the activity on the outside of the tank is displayed on the walls. Gorsky explains that he has a job for Toorop to escort a woman to the United States and he needs him to do it for free. Toorop exclaims that he wants Five Hundred Thousand dollars to perform the task though he cannot go to the United States anymore for untold reasons. Gorsky hands him a futuristic syringe that holds a chip that provides actual citizenship to the US. Toorop willingly accepts the job and gets out of the tank to await the next task. A helicopter arrives holding a car fitted with wiring on the windows for protection. Toorop enters the car and waits as the helicopter flies him to his next location. The helicopter drops him in front of a very old convent, where he is abruptly met by Sister Rebeca. She exclaims she has three rules for the mission. 1, being that the girl, Aurora, has never had associations with the outside world and is to avoid public places. 2, No Foul Language, and lastly, where ever Aurora goes, she goes. Toorop quickly dismisses this by telling her he has his one rule. Which is for them not to fuck with him. This quickly starts a sour relationship between the two before the trip even begins. They are quickly met by Aurora and she asks Toorop if he is a killer and he proceeds to tell her he is nothing to her and she is just a package. Rushing her into the car. As the three proceed to travel through the Russian ghetto, a train takes them to a refugee camp they are chased by poor Russian boys and pelted with rocks at their vehicle. They reach the site of the train and quickly exit the car and go into the crowded bazaar around the area. As they reach the station, they are being watched by a group of people. Aurora looks toward a cage revealed to have tigers inside of it. She is quickly grabbed by Toorop and told that she needs to stick with him and Rebeca for fear of her being taken. They are led to a crowd of people waiting to get into the station and Toorop runs to the front to protest getting on to the train. Aurora quickly looks into the crowd and begins to have a panic attack and runs for the back of the crowd into the market. Toorop and Rebeca quickly follow her and grab her to stop. Aurora begins to explain that they will die in the crowd. Rebeca quickly brushes this off and states that she is just afraid of people since she has never left the convent. Then an explosion kills all the people in front of the station. Toorop picks her up very quickly and they proceed to run onto the train and board it with the rest of the refugees. Aurora begins to explain that the Tigers she saw were Siberian and they had died out in 2017. Toorop tells her they are clones of clones from the original. He then says, she's like an Animal Encyclopedia. They next arrive at a refugee camp somewhere in the middle of Russia. They arrive in a club of sorts that seems to feature a fight club with a cage in the middle. As they travel up the stairs. Aurora spots the large Fighter in the Ring and makes eye contact. They go up the stairs and Toorop tells them to wait over in a corner and he goes over to a man he apparently knows, Finn. He tells Finn he is transporting them and he needs to have two snow mobiles ready for them as they cross the border. Finn tell him that he needs to have citizenship to be able to accomplish that and Toorop says he has Fifty Thousand dollars that says he can. They all proceed to travel down stairs and are cut off by a group of people who jump in front of them displaying skills of free running. The Black leader offers Toorop One Million Dollars to leave them with the group. He looks and takes the money. He tosses it in the air, a crowd goes after it and the rag tag team attempts to escape. Toorop fights off the group of people after them while Aurora gets tossed into the cage with the vicious Fight she saw earlier. He grabs her and takes her into a corner and checks her carefully to see if she's okay without talking to her. Toorop sees this and quickly enters the ring. The gates close and he has to fight the Fighter to save her. A battle of strength ensues and it ends with Toorop strangling the Fighter to death. Aurora runs over to him yelling that the Fighter was only trying to see if she was okay and Toorop continues to kill him. The ring door is opened and Aurora runs away out of the door with Toorop and Rebeca in hot pursuit. The black leader finds Aurora and tells her that he works for her father. Rebeca catches up to her. As they leave, Toorop and Rebeca go after them and the group makes a stand blocking Aurora and the Leader from them. Toorop shoots one and tells them the next one he shoots will be killed. The leader tells Aurora that they are ready to die for her. She says she does not want anyone to die for her and goes back to Rebeca and Toorop. The group then runs away. They are next seen walking across the ice with Finn, Toorop, Rebecca and Aurora at the front of the very large group of Refugees. Finn comments that global warming is bad for business. They come to a halt and Finn tells Toorop that not everyone will be able to get on the boat. Toorop then replies that they need to board it. The "boat" arrives, being a 2000 era USSR submarine. The crew then exits the ship and the captain tells them they have two minutes to board and those not on are left behind. Finn quickly states this is because they do not want to be found by satellite. The refugees begin to battle to board the ship and they climb the rope ladders lowered to board. Aurora, Finn, and Rebeca board safely as Toorop ends up still having to battle the Refugees to board after the ship begins to submerge. He climbs and fights off a crew member to avoid being shot for still climbing. He makes it inside safely. This clearly strikes a cord with Aurora and she begins to demand that the crew goes back up to get the rest of the refugees and starts to program the ship to go back up to everyone surprise. She is knocked unconscious and taken to rest. Toorop sits with Rebeca and speaks to her about Aurora. She says Aurora has always been able to do these things. She states that she was able to speak by the age of two. Toorop quickly addresses that a lot of children are able to speak by two. She states, "But not in nineteen different languages." She also states she was visited by a doctor a few months ago and has been having odd problems lately as well.This makes Toorop very uncomfortable. He scoots over to talk to Finn. Finn says she has the symptoms of carrying a virus and could be worth a lot of money. Toorop states that if she is carrying, he will kill her and burn the body. They then get to the snow mobiles and they must cross a ten mile strip of land to cross the border. They begin the ride, followed by two missiles and turrets firing at the group. Toorop breaks off from the group to draw them away. He destroyed the first drone that follows him and then dispatches the second with his snow mobile as it attempts to fire a rocket. This destroys the drone which drives a piece of metal deep into his back, knocking him unconscious and causing him to begin bleed to death. Aurora demands that they turn around and get back to him. Much to the dismay of Finn, Aurora quickly deducts what is wrong with him and begins work. Finn states he knows the rules and points a gun at Rebeca saying he doesn't need her anymore. He is shot by the now awake Toorop and falls dead. Later the group has set up a tent and is celebrating that they have crossed the border to get to the States. This moment is quickly disrupted by Aurora, who says they are all going to die in New York. This causes her to go to sleep and Rebeca and Toorop to sit in a very uncomfortable manner. Later that night, Toorop is sitting outside throwing away ammunition into the snow and Aurora comes out and joins him. She tells him the origin of her name as they sit under the Aurora Borealis. She asks if he is actually going to kill her and burn her body. He tells her that he hopes he doesn't have to. The next day, they go into a motel where Toorop is getting out of the shower after tending to his wounds. He injects imself with the chip. As he gets out of the shower he is greeted by Aurora. This leads to a romantic moment and just as Aurora goes to kiss Toorop she is interrupted by Rebeca traveling through the front door. Rebeca sees this quickly and rushes them to customs. They pass customs relatively easy and board a plane labeled by Coca-Cola Zero on the side. As they arrive in New York they repeatedly see a woman in a white dress on many boards and building walls. They find a cab and make their way to their assigned apartment in a futuristic Harlem. They enter the Apartment and Aurora asks if they can shut the TV off. Toorop respond with a no and they can only pick 1 channel. As they get settled in. Aurora yells they are all dead. Rebecca bringa up a screen displaying the destruction of the convent they departed. There are no survivors. It then cuts to the woman in the white dress to reveal she is the Priestess of the Noelites. She adresses that it is a ridiculous tragedy to see her sisters blown up over terrorism. Toorop then receives a call from Gorsky to tell him that he needs to give the girl to his men and toorop tell him that he is a terrible person. Then Aurora's escorts arrive and Toorop tells Rebecca they knew from the start that it was a suicide mission. The doctor that saw Aurora months earlier is seen coming up to the apartment from a limo to see Aurora. Toorop tells Rebeca to act like nothing is going on. They let him in and he sees Aurora in private. He then does a few tests on her and she proclaims he is a bad man and he silently agrees. As he exits Toorop throws him against the wall and asks what is wrong with her. The man refuses to tell and Rebeca lets him go. Toorop tells Rebecca that she is hiding something from him and she says she is not. Aurora tells them she is pregnant with twins. This causes confusion to Rebeca who has watched over her from the day she was taken in. She had never been touched leading to a virgin birth. The doctor gets to the Limo and then Toorop receives a call from the Priestess Noelite to take get her into the Limo. Toorop tells Rebeca it is going to be a free-for-all outside. They arrive outside to give her to the Limousine and then trick them and kill all the people escorting it. They then proceed to fight all the people in the area. As the bikers for Gorsky and the Escorts fight, Aurora with Toorop and Rebeca try to make their way out. They fight for a long while, the bikers fire a tracking missile to the Chip Toorop has in his neck. He runs from the group and deflects the missile to a van nearby. This causes Aurora to think he is dead. Toorop comes back and helps to continue to fight for them. Aurora runs and Rebeca chases her and gets shot in the chest. She leans against a car dying and Toorop runs over to her. She tells him it is his turn to protect Aurora and dies. He is then shot in the shoulder. He kills the last people and walks up to Aurora. A missile is shot from a dying biker. Aurora looks at him and tells him. "I need you alive." She then shoots him in the stomach and he falls to his knees. Staring at her. The missile explodes. The Priestess Noelite is shown speaking to through a Screen Gorsky in a car and telling him how he failed her. He says, "What are you going to do kill me?"

She responds that she only kills people that are her problems. He then hears a missile beep on his computer system and says ,"You Bitch" before exploding off the screen. After that Toorop is waking on a stretcher in a facility with a new Robotic Prosthetic leg and a cyborg type Hand. Having lost the others in the explosion. There he is taken to Dr. Arthur Darquandier, a seemingly older man with robotic enhancements. He brought Toorop back to life after being clinically dead for Two Hours. He explains that he genetically enhanced a fetus to run with computer like responses 20 years ago on Aurora. He was provided with the Fetus by Priestess Noelite. He came to love the young girl and became her father. He had to be released to the convent after he was attempted to be killed by the Priestess. He needs to use Toorop to be able to find where she is. He uses a machine because after he was shot he died with his eyes open and needed to see what happened to Aurora. They track in his mind that Aurora stopped the bomb in front of her causing a barrier, killing Toorop in the process. She quickly tells Toorop to go home. They revive him. He goes with the doctor's group and they travel to the old house he used to live in as a child with his parents. He goes in and he finds her there. The Priestess Noelite has found Dr.Darquandier and tells him to hand over her daughter. He tells her that she may have provided the egg, but she is not her mother. She then tells him to tell her where she is. She asks if he loves her enough to die for her and he says yes. She shoots him in the head. As they begin to leave with the group they are pursued by the Group of the Priestess Noelite. They travel away and lose their other group of people and destroy the other villains. The next scene, the High Priestess is yelling at her people that they were going to become the most powerful religion ever, but because of the incompetence of her people, that will not happen. It shows Toorop in a hospital room with a now heavily pregnant Aurora. She calls to him and he states her name. She smiles because he has never said her name before. She put his hand on her heart and tells him he is now "their" father now and he needs to take care of them. He put his head on her chest. It then cuts to a scene in a lush grass covered yard with two children sitting on the ground playing. Toorop then comes to them and tells them it's time to come inside. Aurora's daughters. They each take his hand and he walks away to the nice restored house he used to live in.

• I've posted the paragraph here so that it can be worked on without affecting the readability. --

Pwnage8 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• what readability mate its rubbish

Shorter version of plot

I have written a shorter version of the plot. It was deleted, if this is not explained I will restore it.--Patrick (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

this is the fucking shittest plot summary i have ever read to be honest whoever wrote this is seriously borderline retarded.