Talk:A Scanner Darkly (film)

message: Something has to be done about this guy.  I am not going to get into an edit war, or risk violating the 3RR policy, but his continuing campaign to put these irrelevant Alex Jones links in the article has grown tiresome. ---Charles 05:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a source, sourcing is not irrelevant.--Striver 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a source considered relevant only by you.  You have set yourself up as the unofficial representative for Alex Jones on Wikipedia, pushing his ideas every chance you get.  He has a small role in the film, beyond that, his opinions about the movie are no more relevant than any other self-appointed critic.  His ideas and opinions do not have wide currency or acceptance, and his interpretation of the movie is no more important than any random blogger.  We had a long discussion on this very issue on this talk page, as you well know, and you were outvoted by a considerable margin.  Yet, you go on, inserting this information.  Enough already. ---Charles 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: when the producer Tommy Pallotta screened segments of A Scanner Darkly at Jones's L.A. 9/11 Truth Conference, the director, Richard Linklater, has been interviewed by Jones regarding how he associates real life with the movie, and how he was inspired by some of Jones's core ideologies, and how "wining over" Bruce Willis to the Truth Movement and the music composer Graham Reynolds helped Jones in his movie TerrorStorm, then i see strong arguements for not saying that he is only "relevant to me" in the context of this movie.--Striver 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sick of arguing about this with you.  Clearly it is your intention to use every opportunity you can to act as a representative for Jones and his ideas on Wikipedia, and to push that POV at every turn.  I happen to think that it is inappropriate.  This movie has little or nothing to do with Jones---even if Linklater and the producer are influenced by Jones, the movie is based on a book by Philip K. Dick, not a book by Alex Jones.  And, to be quite frank, Bruce Willis has nothing to do with anything. ---Charles 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is indeed pretty sad. "Trivia" is being used as an excuse for spamming Jones' crackpottery. "Prisonplanet.com" being used as an encyclopedia source, how blatant can policy violations get? Weregerbil 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus appears to be against Striver's edits.  I have reverted his latest changes.  Please keep an eye on the talk page as well as the main article. —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, no. Weregerbil 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, WereGerbil? It's just as relevant if not even more so than the poster of June of 44 in the background of one scene and the song "Teen Angst" being in the trailer, both of which are in this article without dispute. --208.127.64.127 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Striver|Striver]]

message: Who in the world put the spoiler on the main page? You can read something that short if you just look at it. By the time your SPOILER ALARM goes off, you've already gathered all the information that spoils the movie. Maybe something should be done about this, like spoilers being put on separate pages. ~Eric: A Guy Fed Up With SPOILERS All Over The Place —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) .
:I tend to agree, but when we look up about a movie or book, we should expect to see something that we may not want to.  Wikipedia isn't out to protect the innocent you know :p M@$+@ Ju ~ ♠ 00:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, that pretty much sucked. I believe somebody probably wrote it like that just to spoil everything for people. Anyways, I didn't even notice the spoiler warning until I'd already read it. How about if it actually introduced the plot and the world before giving away the ending to a movie that's not even out yet. I came here to learn about the animation technique they used... 220.10.60.165 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler

message: Trivia should be clarified. A French film based upon the relatively obscure (non-SF) Dick novel Confessions of a Crap Artist was released in the early 90s, if I recall correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beckettwatt (talk • contribs) .
: I think the trivia section on short vs long stories should be removed (or moved elsewhere): of the 7 films made, 4 based on shorts (screamers; minority report; total recall; paycheck) vs 3 based on full-length novels (bladerunner; scanner darkly, confessions) is not a significant majority, and not of direct relevance to this film. -- Jon Dowland 16:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: In the music section, there's a biographic section on Graham Reynolds. Though it does have its place in the Wikipedia, this article is not it. I suggest (and therefore have added a split tag) that it is split into its own article; if there is no argument against, I'll do so. –Dvandersluis 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big thumbs up for volunteering to originate Graham Reynolds. But when the tag said "split," I began thinking somebody wanted the Music section moved out (deleted? not when it's on-article). I'd prefer the term "fork," it feels more accurate. (Sorry for nitpicking, don't take it too seriously.) Xaxafrad 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I specifically reworked that section so that the tag was in front of only the paragraph on Reynolds – I assumed that was the correct way to do it? I didn't see a tag for 'forking', so I'm sorry if I used the wrong one. And don't worry, no offense taken ;) –Dvandersluis 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a stub is better than a misplaced section... ;) –Dvandersluis 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above comment. Stub is fine by me, not on the Article. --67.162.4.91 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's been more than 2 days, the movie has now been released, and there's been no response against the idea. I'm splitting off the section. –Dvandersluis 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham Reynolds 

message: Ok, this is my favorite movie of all time. Love it to death. I'm actually drawing upon it for inspiration for a novel I'm writing (I'm unpublished, however.) No spoilers or details however. But anyway, as much as I love it and as many times as I have seen it, I don't understand what was up with the "Bruce" thing at the end of the movie. I'm pretty sure that's Bob but why do they call him Bruce, then? I mean, I understand the thing about calling him Fred, yeah. But whats with this "Bruce" business at the end? 24.14.152.62 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Business 

message: That is f***ing confusing!  He is going to 'catch himself'?  Why not just turn himself in!? Tinlv7 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  !!!??? 

message: Yea...the plot there is somewhat correct, but I thought it was deeper than that, granted I've only seen the movie once. I thought that for some reason, Fred/Bob Arctor was made (as in forced. they kept on saying "he didn't volunteer...") to become this undercover cop with the hopes of catching drug dealers and their sources( ie Barris). The thing about this undercover job is that while at work, he dons a "person-shifting" suit. In other words, the police do not know who this person in the suit really is, they only know his codename, Fred. Meanwhile, Bob, the non-cop, becomes addicted to substance D and befriends of Barris. The police become aware of the two's activities and have no idea that Bob is one of there own men (Fred in the suit). So essentially, yes, Fred is setup to catch Bob, AKA himself. Notice the difference though. Fred is the cop at work with the suit assigned to catch criminals, and Bob is the real drug-addicted acquaintence of Barris. However, they are the SAME person.
Barris is arrested at the end. Fred/Bod Arctor was taken in to the rehabilitation on more friendly terms. Donna, who is also undercover, brought him there because she knew how bad substance D (and its withdrawl symptomes) could be. She wanted him to get better, and return to how he saw things before substance D. Until then, he must work on a type of plantation, sponsored by the rehab. I got the impression that this was prison-like work (cells, warden, labor-intensive work). While there, he also finds the substance D flowers being grown on the ground in between the corn rows. The rehab place is producing the same drug that its patients are trying to quit.
well thats all ive got to say about that. Sorry its choppy, but if you've seen the movie, you'd know what I mean. Please reply for additions (for which im sure there are many) and corrections. Then maybe someone will re-write the plot section. Teimu.tm 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barris Did not work undercover, Neither did freck. Barris was driven insane because he thought they were watching and messing with him rather than arctor. Thats why he submitted fake evidence to the police, which was their plan all along. They could not prove that he was high up in the substance d line, so the caused him to commit a crime that was completely diffrent. 
Conkern65 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot needs re-working 

message: I have something to add RE: the plot summary on the main page. At the end it says that Bruce realizes that the flower is being used to make Substance D, and therefore saves one for his friends. I got the impression that he was conditioned, through those verses he was reciting, to be facinated by blue flowers, and to keep one for his friends. So therefore he might not have made the connection between the flower and the drug, he was merely executing his programming. Also, the issue with his left and right brain seemed to me to be the reason he was able to go through the New Hope conditioning but still have a chance to have that conditioning about the blue flowers remain lodged in his subconscious. They had to plant the conditioning in a non-normal mind in order to have a chance at discovering the Farm's secrets. THX... - k2 11:41 PM 07/23/06
:I agree.  I think that his conditioning to buy blue flowers for his friends was what triggered it, which was the point of the conditioning.  They knew that he was going to be drug addled and unlikely to make a connection in any other way.  Aristoi 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with Main Page Plot 

message: It would be great if there was a small section for this. I haven't read the book in a long time, so I couldn't write it. The book and movie articles have some of the exact same text, which is actually pretty informative, but the movie and book aren't exactly the same. I think the tone was different and obviously the movie was shortened, simplified and updated. Foday 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section's beed added. I've read the novel and seen the movie, and I don't understand how you could think the tone was different. Unless you're talking about the novel's 1970s hippie slang that wasn't in the movie; other than that, the tone seemed identical to me in both. The novel's themes of drug abuse, paranoia, police surveillance, the blurred line between the drug world and police agencies, the questioning of reality, and human behavior in extreme situations all made it into the film. DT29 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To make it more clear, I've changed it to: The novel, published in 1977, takes place in 1994. The film opens with a "seven years from now" text, placing it in 2013, assuming the setting is in relation to the film's 2006 release date. DT29 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between the movie and book section? 

message: Are the names of the people from the novel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AzzAz (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your question can be interpreted in different ways.  The names are found in the afterword ("Author's Note") of the novel.  If you are asking if the names in the afterword (end credits in the film) correspond with the names of the characters, there is very little information.  They were certainly real people that PKD knew, but it is just as likely that the characters in the novel and film are nothing more than an amalgamation of the real people, including PKD himself.  There are a few instances where we have information about people in Dick's life and characters in the book, but my best guess (and I could be wrong) is that the names were changed to protect their privacy. —Viriditas | Talk 08:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End Credits

message: "Unknowingly, Arctor had been selected to carry out the sting." Unknown to whom?? (or is it who). --Gbleem 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unknowingly to his superiors. They do not know who is in the suit, only that he/she has integrated themselves into Arctor's circle of friends, and that he has access to the house. Of course, we know that Fred is in fact Bob, but nobody else could. So unknowingly to his superiors, Fred is selected to carry out the survailence on Bob, on himself.Colossus 86 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknowingly? 

message: I take it the release dates given are for the US. Anyone know: (When) is it coming to the UK? Ben davison 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Google, UK limited release is set for August 18. —Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date

message: The trivia section mentioning Phil D. on headphones and the Blade Runner script could be part of a new section if other Philip K. Dick references in the movie are found.--Undertow87 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philip K. Dick references in the movie

message: I think this, regardless of it's citation, is bogus.
At an approximate 90 min run time, that's 90 min * 500hours/min = 45,000 (min) hours/min = 45,000 hours
Now, 45,000 is reasonably close to 48,000 hours, which is exactly 2000 days.
This indicates that the movie was in  production for over six years.
:: Yes, only one person worked on this entire movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 500 hours / min animation

message: I'm not getting involved in your anti-Alex Jones squabbles, but I just wanted to note that I added this to the trivia. If you don't believe me you can look at the movie, yourself. The only thing is that I'm not sure if I got the magazine's quote down correctly:
*Also, at one point towards the beginning of the film, the screen 'fast forwards' as Jim Barris and Freck enter a gas station shop. Very briefly a police officer can be seen reading a magazine that quotes "Alex Jones Runs for Office" on the cover.
--208.127.64.150 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Second Alex Jones Cameo 

message: In the film, "Hank" is revealed to be Donna. In the novel, Hank's identity is never explicity revealed, only hinted at.
What are the hints? FilipeS 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Bob (in disguise as Fred) says he has two kids, Hank says "I don't think you do. You're not supposed to." This implies that Hank is someone Bob knows personally, and that Bob has lied to his friends, telling them he has no kids. Later on we find out Donna is a narcotics agent, and Donna knows Bob, so put two and two together. DT29 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't seem likely. It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, but in the novel Bob doesn't know what Hank meant by "not supposed to." DT29 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Donna=Hank?

message: :Image:A Scanner Darkly Poster.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 Wikipedia articles 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.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale added 09:11, 25 May 2007. —Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:A Scanner Darkly Poster.jpg

message: I trimmed this pretty savagely; anything restored would have to be encyclopedic and sourced. I think the article looks better now. --John 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: :Image:D059418.jpeg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:D059418.jpeg

message: The title is a reference to a verse in the New Testament of the Bible, 1 Corinthians: 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly."
Why is this statement likely to be challenged? It says where you can find it in the Bible, and the relevance is obvious to any educated reader.
Please cf the Grapes of Wrath entry, where it is taken as self-evident that the "grapes of wrath" in the Battlehymn of the Republic
is a biblical reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference given in the article on the eponymous book. — Xavier, 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed? 

message: Towards the end of the Plot, the articles says that the blue flowers are "hidden through an invisible cloak."  The movie does not explicitly say this, it only vaguely implies that something is hiding the flowers.  The dialog proceeds as follows:  Bob says "The flower is gone," and the man who seems to be a big shot for the Substance D industry replies, "No, you just can't see them."  While this is an important element of the plot, it needs to be restated to follow the movie a bit more strictly and to cut conjecture down to a minimum.
--HockeyInJune (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible Cloak 

message: I like to know in which year the story of a Scanner Darkly takes place. For example the Blade Runner story is set to the year 2019, Surrogates to 2017, Demolition Man is in 2032, I, Robot in 2035 and Total Recall is set to 2084. --Solphusion (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Seven Years from the present. Right now it would be 2017, but in 2011 it would be 2018. Its just seven plus to the current date.
Conkern65 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Scanner Darkly ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A Scanner Darkly (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-scannerdarkly7jul07%2C0%2C5662926.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050713081117/http://www.philipkdick.com/films_scanner.html to http://www.philipkdick.com/films_scanner.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified