Talk:Dark City (1998 film)/Archive 1

message: Heh.  It took me all of 20 seconds to remember Ebert did the commentary track, get up, check my DVD to verify it, sit back down and I notice you already added it.  You're just too fast for me, apparently. :) RADICALBENDER★ 04:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary track 

message: Someone edited the "Similarities to other works" section recently and gave middle names for the real and fictional Daniel Schrebers. I haven't seen any sources to back either up, and I think someone should explain where they got them from. -- LGagnon 03:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling for "Daniel Paul Schreber" and "Daniel Poe Schreber" will get you plenty of people who independently agree with User:Goblin. Which is not to say that they're not all wrong, mind you. --Paul A 03:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Schreber

message: Why is this article located at Dark City (1998) instead of Dark City (which redirects to Dark City (1998))? bbx 19:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was previously disambiguated... I've restored that now, but in a different format. --Joy [shallot] 22:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Someone changed John's creation of the sun to him turning the city towards the sun. Is there any proof that he actually did this? As far as I remember, the sun wasn't there until after John used his powers to make it exist. -- LGagnon 18:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
: FWIW, I watched the movie last night and it's said quite specifically a few times that John can control the machines under the city, allowing him to control everything within the city. The sun, obviously, is beyond that. The camerawork at the end of the movie definitely gives the impression that the city is being rotated towards an existing sun rather than one being created whole cloth. I didn't make that change, but I agree with it. - Matt Shepherd
: My impression was that John either created a representation of the sun, or allowed the existing one to shine through - where it had been hidden. 
--Mr kitehead 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The sun

message: i dont think the article tells the rating ... --Nerd42 03:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at the bottom of the Technical data section. -- LGagnon 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  whats it rated? 

message: I remember that, when this movie was released, there was some todo made about why the strangers used knives in this movie instead of something like a gun.  The reason given was that Proyas really wanted to avoid the use of guns as much as possible, due to the tragedy surrounding the film "The Crow", which he directed immediately prior to this one.  He couldn't justify removing all guns from the film, which is why the humans still used them, but that he jumped at the chance to give the Strangers a different weapon.  I recall this being brought up in an interview or two, but it wasn't something that anyone associated with the film really like to bring up too much.  Thing is, I can't seem to find any decent information to confirm this now.  Anyone got any leads?  Did I just imagine all of this?  --Reverend Loki 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex Proyas and Why The Strangers Use Knives 

message: I know this will upset the fanboy celebration of this movie, but why not something about the massively negative critical and audience reception to this movie?  Ebert liked it, but so what?  He's only one critic among many and not terribly influential, despite being famous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs) 14:44, June 19, 2006  (UTC)
:Actually, Rotten Tomatoes critic meter registered a 77% favorable rating from 52 critic reviews for this movie.  I don't think I'd use "massively negative" to describe 12/52 negative reviews.  It also received an average 6.8/10 review.  Compare it to a similar film, Strange Days, from a few years earlier. For Strange Days, the budget was twice as large and it grossed only a third as much worldwide when compared to Dark City.  I'd say the audience reception of Dark City was just fine (gross box office broke even with it's estimated budget which most movies can't say).  I think you are wrong on both accounts.  ju66l3r 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, aside from that fact that "fanboy" might be a violation of WP:CIV, if you can state your case in an appropriately WP:NPOV way, you're obviously welcom to be bold and edit the article. But please note that lots of movies that are now seen as great were not immediate critical or box-office successes. The Wizard of Oz comes to mind as does The Shawshank Redemption. Atlant 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception 

message: So, I was looking at Articles By Quality, and was wondering about where this one fit into their rating scheme.  Personally, I find myself wishing there was a level between "Start" and "B", though using just what they have given us, I'm thinking it fits best into the "B" category.  It definitely has a way to go before climbing higher than that.  Ayways, I thought I would solicit opinions from anyone else watching this article before taking any action.  Folks?  --Reverend Loki 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, having just read the entire article immediately after I watched the film for the first time on dvd (it's 4am now and I certainly recommend watching this title late in the evening), I felt the need to say that the article, despite being a bit short, seems very well written to me. I particularly enjoyed the "similarities to other works" section. It provides a certain depth without being excessively long. I checked the film articles by quality category you've mentioned and my vote would be somewhere between "B" and "GA" classes. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality rating for this Film Article 

message: The aliens remind me of Nosferatu. --Error 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nosferatu

message: I reverted the addition of :Category:Alien visitation films to this article, but I see my edit was also reverted. I feel the category is not appropriate here, for several reasons. The category description refers to "films [that] have been made about aliens visiting the Earth", and Earth doesn't even appear in Dark City. It's not exactly Close Encounters of the Third Kind or The Day the Earth Stood Still. While it's possible that the residents of the city were abducted from Earth, there's no reason to assume that's the case, and frankly, it doesn't matter to the story. I still think the article has no business being in the category. - EurekaLott 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I put it into Alien visitation films, I have to agree it doesn't belong there. I have been sorting out the cats on so many films...mistakes happen! Anyway, I have now moved it to Space adventure films which is more accurate as the Alien visitation cat was intended for films about Aliens on Earth. Mallanox 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you think :Category:Space adventure films is more appropriate. The category has no description, but I assume it includes movies that feature people flying around in spaceships. If that's the case, the category fits Dark City just as poorly as :Category:Alien visitation films did. - EurekaLott 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While it's possible that the residents of the city were abducted from Earth, there's no reason to assume that's the case,
Dr. Schrieber explicitly states "We were abducted". Although he doesn't say "from the Earth", it's pretty clear from the general setting of the movie that these people are humans and the setting is an Earthlike mileau; I think one can safely conclude the subjects of the experiment were abducted directly from the Earth.
Atlant 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Alien visitation films

message: I have just reverted the addition (again) of the line "Many fans of the film prefer to keep the film on mute for the first 5 minutes as it gives away the entire plot twist".  No one who has added it that I see has given any reasoning for why it should be included, while those who have removed it have often explained why.  The statement is without any citation, yet makes grand statements about the viewing practices of this movie's fans.  This is exactly the type of claim that needs citation of reliable sources in order to be included in this article.  Please don't try and add it again unless you can convince us of the statement's validity through documentation.  --Reverend Loki 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About muting the beginning of the film 

message: I love this movie, but I'm kind of confused. So, one time John woke up in the middle of being injected with memories. So what? The Strangers just fled the scene? Couldn't they just restrain anyone who does this and inject them again? Unless they struggle and escape, but then they would remember struggling and escaping. John just wakes up in a bathtub with no memories at all. How does that make sense? I assumed the reason he was a known serial killer was because someone when the police found him the Strangers would know exactly where he was, but no, he's just a known serial killer because his new memories were going to make him into one. So this means the Strangers took no measures to catch him other than 'guys let's chase him down'. --70.81.114.188 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although never explicitly stated, I believe it is heavily implied that no Strangers were present at this time.  Once the scenario is setup, there is nothing more for the Strangers to do, so hey leave.  The doctor then follows along making the injections.  So, when he came to, the only one present was Kiefer Sutherland's character, and he wasn't real eager for the Strangers to have that it of info.   --Reverend Loki 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohh, right. That makes sense. --70.81.114.188 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaping plot hole? 

message: Someone should add a section in the article explaining the controversy over the opening narration.  Kwyjibear 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it gone? We used to have such a section, IIRC. Atlant 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was removed for being weaselly and poorly written. The tendency for Wikipedians to see "controversy" anywhere that something annoys them continues to impress me. Chris Cunningham 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I completely agree that too many things on Wikipedia are labeled "controversies" based on the feelings on small groups of fans, generally, if a majority dislikes something, it might be worth noting. If some evidence can be found for it, anyway. As for this specific case, there's currently a commented-out note in the "Plot" section that doesn't use the word "controversy", though it isn't written too well. According to this DVD review, quoting Alex Proyas himself (presumably from the commentary track), the intro was "studio-imposed" and "unnecessary". Since the director's intent was obviously not to have it there, I think that makes it notable enough to be worth putting in the article in some form. I'm going to try adding a revised note in place of the old one. See what you think. Maybe it belongs somewhere other than the "Plot" section, but I think it's ok there for now. --Fru1tbat 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narration 

message: There are too many images in the article, especially with insufficient fair use rationale.  Each image needs to have a unique fair use rationale, not a generic list.  See this from Spider-Man 3 as an example.  The image of the morphing buildings can strengthened specifically to support the paragraph about the influence of The Crow, but I'm not sure about the rest.  The image of Dr. Schreiber only seems to serve as identification, and WP:FU requires that the rationale be more than that.  For example, the appearance of the character, with the scar and the glasses, would be appropriate critical commentary to warrant the image's inclusion.  However, there is no direct basis for the image of Mr. Hand threatening Emma and the group of the Strangers.  I imagine that there could be more description uncovered about the appearance of the Strangers, but the image of Mr. Hand does not have any critical commentary pointed at it.  Lastly, the soundtrack cover does not meet fair use rationale because cover art must receive critical commentary.  It does not qualify as critical commentary about the music itself.  For example, appropriate cover art to have critical commentary on would be the Rolling Stone magazine with John Lennon and Yoko Ono.  I would suggest the removal of all images except the morphing buildings, and when the article is improved in terms of content, we can locate images that suit the content better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose their appropriateness depends on how narrowly you define fair use. The capture of Mr. Hand and Emma illustrates a plot point, and the one of the Strangers does a decent job of displaying an aspect of the film's visual design. The image of Dr. Schreber is more difficult to justify, and perhaps should be removed. However, I don't know if the album cover image needs to be held to the same standards. If the soundtrack had its own article (as many soundtracks do), it would traditionally include the cover art, regardless of whether the imagery was addressed in the article. If the soundtrack gains its own article, I would support the image's removal from this article. Please also the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Restarting non-poll discussion. - EurekaLott 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that fair use has been more stringent lately, it seems appropriate to provide strong justification for any image.  When I start improving an article, I tend to be fairly critical of its content, as if it were about to undergo the FAC process anytime.  I'm sure that the images here would sit just fine in the currently B-grade article, but when the time comes, the rationale for non-free images should be sharpened.  The issue with using images in the Plot section is that pretty much any image from the film could be used to support any part of the story.  Why this image, for example, over one of the main character doing something?  What seems best to do is if possible, to find an image from a scene that has been commented upon.  The image in the Plot section at Dirty Dancing, in my opinion, is a nice example of this.  I'm sure that an image of the Strangers could be justified if we found independent, critical commentary about why they were designed the way they were, and the same would go for Dr. Schreber.  As for soundtrack images, you're right, when they have their own articles, the soundtrack image is used for identification.  I looked at the discussion you provided, and I'll let that play out; I'm not exceedingly picky about the result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Why is a citation needed for something so obvious? I just watched this film and Jeunet's City of lost Children as well as Borges'  Lottery in Babylon came straight to my mind. At least for those 'citation needed' marks, i guess they can be removed (I will do so, if nobody objects). 217.85.91.130 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not permit original research, which is basically providing one's own analysis of the film.  The connection needs to be perceived by a reliable source, not an editor, otherwise we would be able to comment on any aspect of a film, whether it is "obvious" or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course. But as in 'Lottery in Babylon' peoples identities are permuted as well as they are in 'Dark City' (as well as in a story by Stanislaw Lem, btw.), a reliable source is not necessary, i think, because this is a fact (anybody can check this by reading those books). No claim is risen, that this has been done intentionally, which would clearly require a reliable source cited. You would not demand a citation for the plot synopsis in the beginning. 217.85.91.189 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still original research in the sense that a connection is drawn between two subjects where none was previously established by an independent source.  Permitting original connections like these has no objective standards -- films could be connected with the merest of examples, such as similar protagonists, similar atmospheres, similar outcomes.  Content such as similarities between this film and other films, whether intended or unintended, should be verified by reliable sources, not from the perspectives of editors like you and me.  Perhaps an attempt can be undertaken to find a reliable source using the titles of both films in a search engine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation needed"? 

message: The anime Big O has some striking similarities to this movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.1 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big O 

message: This section seems very much like a blatant promotion for the Directors Cut DVD. In Addition, the formatting of the section takes up too much page length. Does it even deserve it's own section? Winston Spencer (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest creating a "Home media" section mentioning the film's VHS and DVD release (with a summary of whatever special features the latter has).  I would also implement a few sentences about the director's cut, but they need to be sourced (as with everything else not directly from the film).  Here's coverage from Sci Fi Wire.  It may also be worth looking at the style guidelines' home media section for some ideas. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirrector Cut...Cut it? 

message: In the first section, there was a reference to a "blood soaked knife". First of all, a compound modifier should be hyphenated: "blood-soaked knife". However, this is moot, because the idea is garbage. A knife is not porous enough to soak up blood, like a napkin. Therefore, I changed it to "bloody knife". 
Only porous substances (napkins, biscuits, sponges) can soak up liquids. Think before you write.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.206.59 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style correction 

message: I think the "similarities" section should mention the anime movie called Beautiful Dreamer, a spin-off of the Urusei Yatsura series, since it has a very similar plot.
--216.9.188.140 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beautiful Dreamer 

message: I wonder if the "force field" is relevant. Yes, the city is a space habitat, but IMHO the force field is just an assumption, not a fact. Comments, anyone? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...revealing the city as an enormous space habitat surrounded by a force field."