Talk:Run Lola Run

message: I know there are all sorts of wonderful rules for Wikipedia articles, to insure objectivity, reliable, independent sources, etc., etc., etc., but it alarms me to see the big orange exclamation point and multiple warnings about content and format on probably the most useful, informative, and entertaining Wikipedia article I've ever read.
So what if "it contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article"? The plot summary is brilliant, thorough, and more helpful than 90% of what's on Wikipedia today (July 18, 2009). I would hate to see any of it deleted just for the sake of following rules that may be more valuable in an article about physics or racism than about a popular movie.
I know that one reason this article is so good is that it's received a lot of editorial scrutiny in the past, but the warning about the too-long plot summary was just added this month. Please, guys, just don't be too hasty to fix something that may not need fixing, just because it doesn't obey all the rules and cite enough "sources." What sources are there anyway for a movie—reviews? Roger Ebert's opinions are still just opinions, not necessarily any more objective or valuable than mine or whoever contributed to the wonderfully L-O-N-G plot summary in this article.
By the way, I have personally contributed nothing to this article, and I read it today for the first time, so I have absolutely no vested interest in it at all, except as a reader who enjoyed and appreciated it very much.
--Jim10701 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, don't be too rough with this article 

message: I deleted the following sentence from the first paragraph of the "Plot"-Section,as it very likely is vandalism.
"This is probaly the sexist movie ever i was so turned on when lola took a bath that was hot you know i don't like the word know when i explain things it should be just NO N,O "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.205.21.56 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Vandalism 

message: In my edit of 2004-10-31, I removed the following: 
:It is very much a film about consequences and interconnectivity, and seems to deny the existence of fate, or rather aims to define "fate" as something that is malleable, and altered by every choice an individual makes for himself.
Since Lola's encounters rarely involve a conscious choice, I felt the butterfly effect more accurately described what was happening.  It's a bit sticky, since the first place the stories diverge is the stairwell.  The first time, the dog scares Lola.  The second time, the dog's owner chooses to trip Lola.  The third time, Lola chooses to intimidate the dog first.  Thoughts?
-- Ventura 16:24, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
:: I think you're absolutely right. Change it! The Singing Badger 18:18, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lola came out many years after A Sound of Thunder and the Butterfly effect became a part of science in the 1960's. Would you have to change all mention of matrices to tables because a movie named Matrix came out? --Cubbi (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An all inclusive search of the exact phrases "Run Lola Run" and "Chaos Theory".  I'd say 3400 results is pretty significant and proves my point.  Searching for Run Lola Run and Butterfly effect is tainted because of the 2004 movie, but you can use Google groups to do the search by date and it also shows that more people talked about Chaos Theory in relation to Run Lola Run than calling it The Butterfly Effect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suso (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate vs. Butterfly effect 

message: I'm going to re-check but I seem to recall that this movie did not take place in Berlin but Cologne. I think it mentions it in the director's commentary. If someone else is sure, please edit. If not, sorry!
: At the beginning of the story, Lola tries to take a cab.  The street name corresponds to separate streets in East and West Berlin.  Lola is frustrated because she meant West and the cabbie went East.  No other cities would've been split East and West like Berlin was, right?  I consider that strong evidence that the setting is Berlin.  -- Ventura 05:20, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
It's Berlin, the square through which she runs (the one that we see from above) contains a recognizable landmark in the last scene in which it appears. --Our Bold Hero 22:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and the number plates of the vehicles all start with a "B" :)Marcus Bowen (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: One borough of Berlin is called Neukölln. Maybe a translator got confused with Köln (Cologne) which has nothing to do with Neukölln.--217.224.12.10 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it Berlin? 

message: I think the references section needs cleaning up. The Vertigo painting thing isn't so much a "rumor" as an anecdote the director tells on the commentary track (and so could probably be described more accurately as soon as someone verifies by watching the commentary). I also don't understand how the movie references the work of Wim Wenders, however similar the tone of his films might be.
--Our Bold Hero 07:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't catch this discussion before posting.  See below.Loodog 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it.Loodog 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The last sentence of the second paragraph struck me as stupid. I think it is offending to this film to say that it owes anything to video games. Search4Lancer 10:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken it out, and replaced it with a reference to Kies'lowski, a more obvious influence. ProhibitOnions 14:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video games? 

message: "He returns the phone card, but this time, unlike in the previous two sequences, he thanks her."
That's not true; i've just watched the film, and he thanks her the first time as well.
:You're right.  I fixed it.Loodog 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manni thanking the blind woman 

message: Someone tell me:
* What this is doing in the "references" section?
* What this highly colloquial and erroneous commentary is doing in the article at all?
"In the second scenario, Lola does a little better. She still allows Manni to make her responsible for his mistakes, and again, he just waits passively at the phone booth for her to rescue him, but this time, she is much more assertive in dealing with her father. She robs his bank, holding a gun to his head! Then she escapes, despite the fact that the bank is surrounded by police. But just as she reaches Manni, a truck runs him over, and he ends up dead. But at least she's not dead!
In the third scenario, both Manni and Lola act more responsibly. Manni actually does something to help himself instead of waiting passively and childishly for Lola to rescue him: he tracks down the homeless guy who has the cash and takes it back. Lola, for her part, doesn't rely on Daddy this time, but instead goes into a casino and legally acquires the 100,000 marks, using her powerful trademark scream to force the roulette wheel to do her bidding. By the time she finds Manni, he has solved his own problem already. However the final scene leaves a question mark on their relationship. Lola is pensive after seeing him very pleased after handing the money over but will Manni continue down this path and risk his and Lola's lives again? The viewer is left with the question whether or not Lola will tell Manni what is in her bag.
At the beginning of the movie, Manni is childishly blaming Lola for his own mistake: "you weren't there with the moped, so I had to take a subway..." Lola tries to reason with him, but Manni is crying like a baby. Maybe that is why his name is Manni, "little man." She rescues him as a mother would rescue a child, at least in the first two scenarios.
In between the first and second scenarios, there's a "pillow talk" flashback, where Lola asks Manni if he really loves her, in an insecure and clingy way. This scene elucidates the nature of their relationship and explains why Lola felt she needed to rescue Manni: she is not very confident and feels unloveable, perhaps in part because of her distant and self-absorbed parents, so she will go to any lengths, even risking her life, for Manni. But between the second and third scenarios, in a similar "pillow talk" flashback, it is Manni who is the insecure one, worried about what Lola would do if he died: would she quickly get another boyfriend and forget him? She matter-of-factly ends this silly conversation by saying, "Manni, you're not dead yet." Lola is strengthening before our eyes, and in the third scenario, she does the right thing."
I would like to remove this.Loodog 20:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.Loodog 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  under references? 

message: Please do not revert large sections of text without discussion lest the article become the battlefield for an unproductive revert war.Loodog 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert? 

message: Anybody notice that when the woman converts to Christianity, she goes to a Church (Catholic?) and worships but, is later holding 'The Watchtower' and "Awake!' magazines, published by Jehovah's Witnesses?Abbott75 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed. I think that either she tried several different religions or the sequence wasn't researched well. -- 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The old Woman 

message: I've removed this paragraph as I think the allusion, especially between Orpheus' music and Lola's voice, is extremely strained.
: A clear allusion which can be seen running through the film is the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Orpheus, possessing the mythical ability to influence with his song and instrument, sets off to persuade Hades (protector of the Underworld) to return his dead lover Eurydice, who has been bitten by the snake, to life. The film's four main characters Lola, Manni, Papa & Ronnie are versions of Orpheus, Eurydice, Hades and the snake respectively. Lola sets off on a quest to save Manni from certain death (at the hand of Ronnie) using her scream to influence events. Papa's position at the bank makes him in a position to provide Lola with the money to save Manni thus making him Hades. 
: This allusion explains the fairytale-like quality of the narrative and Lola's surreal control, with time resetting with each failure - on endless repeat until good triumphs over evil and love breaks through the strongest barriers. References to fairytales also include Lola being called "princess" and in the lyrics of "I Wish".
--Saforrest 09:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orpheus and Eurydice 

message: The first line of the article says:
Run Lola Run (original German title Lola rennt, which translates to Lola Runs) is a 1998 film.....
"Lola rennt" also translates to "Lola is running". Is there a reason for the translation given? If not I'll change it to:
Run Lola Run (original German title Lola rennt, which translates to Lola Runs or Lola is Running) is a 1998 film.....
--Bucephalus 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation 

message: The article states: "Apart from the debt to Krzysztof Kies'lowski mentioned above, perhaps this film's most obvious visual references are..." but Kies'lowski is not mentioned above. Was something deleted?
:I agree. I'm going to remove that. -- ToastyKen 00:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kies'lowski reference

message: Is it just a coincidents that you've got two red heads that can scream? Pocopocopocopoco 03:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection with Marvel comics [[Siryn]]

message: :Image:RunLolaRun.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RunLolaRun.jpg

message: Is there a reason why this article is titled as Run Lola Run instead of Lola rennt in English Wikipedia?  I know this section of Wikipedia services the English-speaking public, but I can't help feeling that it would be more proper (and certainly more respectful to the creators) to place the article under the correct German title, with a redirect from Run Lola Run.  The opening sentence could be altered slightly to something like:
"Lola rennt (English title Run Lola Run, more properly translated as Lola Runs or Lola Running) is a 1998 film..."
I've always felt that foreign language media, even if better known in a translated form, should be referred to by its original, and therefore "correct" title.  Thoughts?
98.211.44.211 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The films name is Lola Rennt. Thedreamdied (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our guidelines suggest using the most common name in English, which I suspect would be this title. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ich bin ein berliner = "I am a jelly doughnut" Q.E.D.69.233.68.204 (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titling 

message: Supposedly, the "Themes" section contains "original research." But with the exception of one or two small details, I didn't find anything I haven't read in a book or journal. However, finding the specific titles and page numbers would take me more time than I have right now. たろ人 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research tag for "Themes" section 

message: All three times that Lola runs out of her apartment to begin her journey, her mother calls after her very quickly something which the English subtitles place as "Lola, are you going shopping? I need Shampoo." In the original German, it sounds to me like she says "Lola, gehst du einkaufen? Ich brauch' Shampus" Which would mean "I need champagne." This would tie in with what Frau Hansen tells Lola's father about his wife being "drunk day and night."
Can anyone with the movie handy check it out? Perhaps check with the German subtitles on?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.98.161 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shampoo vs Schampus? 

message: Yeah- that was what happened actually- the yellow box is not asking for citations or references, it just said condense: did that offend aomeone? I had it down to about five lines and it was concise- feel free to compare, 'the yellow sign said' section is now no longer up either... this makes me feel small, I was trying to heklp, minimalism is an art.
: This is in reference to this revert, for anyone reading. which I made because "Condense" does not mean "Replace with new, never previously mentioned, information". Not to mention general uselessness of the resulting stub. --Cubbi (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Revert 

message: The section with the "Themes" tagged as original research for over a year. I reverted a good-faith edit today which added more original research, too.
Are there any references forthcoming for this section? Otherwise I'm going to purge the things that are neither sourced nor factual.
Also, the article lists the shooting location for almost every scene, which seems somewhat over the top. Averell (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and locations 

message: It is VERY simple: the movie is all about Skepticism, a recognized philosopy.  The key scene is the last scene: Her boyfriend asks Lola: "Whats in the bag?..."
:In other words, EVERYTHING in the movie existed only in Lola's mind.  The Skeptic always asks the question: How do you know that happened?  
:Laters gang, Kailua Red.Kailua Red (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone is wasting their breath on "Run Lola Run" 

message: I did not add this yet to the page, but an episode of Phineas and Ferb was titled "Run Candace Run", and does a kind of parody of "Run Lola Run". The song played during Candace's run is also a parody of the song that plays during Lola's run.
Sources: http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/Run,_Candace,_Run (episode) and http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/Run_Candace_Run_%28song%29 (song) Do what you will with this information. Azzychan (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:IPC. In general, such references are trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources (which the included wikis are not). Thanks. - SummerPhD 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture Reference to Run Lola Run 

message: Episode 12 of ER (season 15), the medical drama, uses the same structure as Lola, where our attractive lead character (Neela) experiences the same series of events with variations, leading to failure, failure, and finally, success, all in a hospital environment.
Varlaam (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''ER'' 

message: At an ongoing AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works set in a single day, I pointed out that this film is in :Category:Time loop films.  That is proper, IMO.  It is the entirely most defining characteristic of this film!  Or am I wrong in some technical, semantic way?  Please discuss here, don't remove the category, which helps readers navigate between similar films.  Perhaps some other term is technically better, I dunno, but let's not throw out what is working, without suitable replacement. --Doncram (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Time loop: "periods of time are repeated and re-experienced by the characters" (bolding mine). I haven't seen the film myself, but based on my reading of the article, it is simply showing three alternate possibilities, not Lola experiencing one, then a second (with memories of the first), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Like Sliding Doors (which I also haven't seen). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen RLR many times, it is one of my favorites. I think you are making a very technical, semantic point about the degree to which the characters have memories. In RLR, there is actual some subtle play with that. While Lola is not explicitly remembering, she in fact does "learn" a bit during the episodes: when she comes to a similar juncture she pauses then does not make the same mistake. The director/writer is messing with you as viewer about that, about whether that is happening or not (and IMO she definitely is learning). Right, it is not explicit memory, experience as in the film Groundhog Day. I haven't read yet what Time loop says, but whatever it says may be too strict. The basic plot is the same whether you say a person is remembering or not, the fact is they go through the same period repeatedly, sounds like a "time loop" to me. Does this need to be discussed at Talk:Time loop? Sure there needs to be distinction, perhaps different terms given for the two types and for gray area ones like RLR. --Doncram (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Okay, now having gone to Time loop, I re-assert that RLR definitely completely fits into the genre.  "A time loop or temporal loop is a plot device in which periods of time are repeated and re-experienced by the characters, and there is often some hope of breaking out of the cycle of repetition."  That is exactly what happens.  The first times through, you get to the end (which is a clock striking noon in fact) and you are experiencing a bad outcome.... then whew, you get to jump back in time and start over and you are pulling for Lola and the other characters to do better. --Doncram (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have me at a bit of a disadvantage (maybe I should dig up a copy of the movie), but the whole point of a time loop is that the character is reliving the time period and, consciously or subconsciously, learning from their mistakes. Your guess that Lola is doing this seems to be OR. My second-hand interpretation is that she is simply making a different decision at each crisis point or something happens to her differently because otherwise there'd be no alternate scenarios! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually in this article.  The earliest juncture she encounters is a man with a dog in the stairway...she finally jumps over it and avoids the collision in the third go-round.  But much more, including in this article "Several moments in the film allude to a supernatural awareness of the characters. For example, in the first reality, Manni shows a nervous Lola how to use a gun by removing the safety, while in the second timeline she removes the safety as though she remembers what to do. This suggests that she might have the memory of the events depicted in the previous timeline. Also, the bank's guard says to Lola "you finally came" in the third timeline, as if he remembered Lola's appearances in the previous two."  Absolutely exactly what I was saying. --Doncram (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I didn't want to read the article too carefully in case I wanted to watch the film (which I do and will; the library has it). I'll reserve judgment until then. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, i was going to encourage you, you certainly should see the movie if you can.  It is really great!  You can probably enjoy watching it twice in a row, right away, in fact, doing your own time-looping! --Doncram (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  After seeing the movie, I stand by my initial assessment. Yes, Lola does jump the punk, but that may just mean she spots his intention to trip her, not necessarily that she is aware of their "previous" encounter. If she remembers her previous attempts, why does she never avoid Meyer's car and why does she keep going to her dad for help when she should know it will be useless? I also listened to part of the audio commentary, at the beginning of the film and at the start of the second run. The director never refers to a time loop (I didn't listen to it all), only that he was fascinated by how a small difference could result in a big change, i.e. the butterfly effect. Also, an interview with Tykwer about the film posted on his website does not mention a time loop either. That being said, several (un)reliable sources classify this as a time loop film, though the stupid New York Post also includes 50 First Dates(!) in that category, so verifiability trumps accuracy. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do trust you enjoyed it.  Again I don't mean to argue that Lola explicitly remembered, but she did somehow (supernaturally?) absorb something it seems.  Repeated tries at the bank...well she was trying different ways to get money out of there, she "knows" one way doesn't work, the fact she fails again doesn't mean she didn't progress.  The point in the movie's presentation, or something that makes it interesting for us, is that we viewers don't know exactly whether she is remembering or what.  There is no doubt that the film itself loops in time...it goes back to the previous clock position and then marches ahead towards 12 again.  Frustrating about silly categorizations in the press.  Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time loop film category 

message: The current article states, jarringly to me, Lola garners 126,000 deutsche marks ("Having only 99 marks, she convinces the cashier to give her a 100 mark chip. Betting the chip on a roulette table, she wins two consecutive bets, raising 126,000 marks.")  Where does that come from?  I had the impression from the movie that she won a bit more than 100,000, which is the number she needed.  In fact I thought I had it figured out once, and that in her second bet she would get just a little bit more than needed.  [Yes, actually i think i am not alone as a viewer, figuring it out close enough, in my head, as the scene plays out: she wins 35x return, yay!  30x twice would not be enough, that would yield 900 x her initial bet of 100, so 90,000 total, not enough.  Hmm, 35x twice yields more than 1,000x her initial bet, okay whew.  Yay, she has enough going into the one last "game" before she gets ejected from the casino.]  Mention of a different specific number, unless it is supported, is not cool.
Okay, the casino scene is online (in low-resolution critical commentary video at Run Lola Run: Casino Scene).  After the first bet, the roulette table operator reports:  "Three thousand, five hundred marks for 100 marks on 20."   Then pushes.."Here you are...3,500".  She pushes the 3,500 to add to the 100 she still has left sitting on 20, black.  So she is getting 35 times return, or multiplying her initial stake by 36.  Winning a second time should yield 100 * 36 * 36 = 129,600.
What is the 126,000 number currently in the article?  Or is there some sort of tax or something?  (She does owe the cashier .80 marks, but there is no indication she paid that or tipped.) Or is there an error in the English language subtitle translation?  
The only mentions I see in reviews of the movie are of 100,000 being the target, and her getting that, so I don't think the Wikipedia article should be inserting an overly specific number, particularly one that is wrong. --Doncram (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And, by the way, of course you see that Lola wasn't betting optimally, at least not to maximize her chances to walk away with 100,000.  After the first bet, she only needed to leave 2,800 riding, which would yield 100,800 if 20, black, won again.  I think she should have distributed the other 600 on different numbers, so that she could parlay winnings from one of those if her main bet lost.  This would make for a more mathematically pleasing plot, right? :) --Doncram (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think she would've betted in the first place if she doubted that she would win :) wumbolo ^^^ 19:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Time was a factor. It would take her longer to build 600 into 100,000. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay well sure it would have dragged along boringly if she had to re-parlay, whatever.  There is a reason I am a Wikipedia volunteer and not a successful drama-building movie director. :(  I edited the "126,000" mention out of this article though, because it is not specifically supported and does not seem to be accurate. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  casino winnings amount 

message: Given the significance of the film, I would expect more content around the original storyline development and production of the film (ie. how it was written and funded).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.179.160.133 (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production/story? 

message: The article states: "The Lola character is often compared to the Lara Croft character of the 1996 video game Tomb Raider." But it doesn't explain why people make the comparison, making the statement fairly pointless. Is it because they have similar names? Probably not. I know I could check the references, but shouldn't the Wikipedia article itself be enough to at least get some idea of why people compare the two? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:573A:A3FE:6BA1:5D92 (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article States Lola Compared to Lara Croft; But Why is She?