Talk:Donnie Darko/Archive 1

message: There's a Kafka quote in the Plot section of the article that reads like this: "And I dream of a grave narrow and deep where we could hold each other as if with iron bars and you would hide your face in me and I would hide my face in you and nobody would see us any more." This has been either copied or translated wrong. The quote, from Franz Kafka's The Castle, reads like this:
:"I can't think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there's no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us anymore."
I've seen this movie but I'm not even sure of the relevance of this particular quote to anything. Can anybody enlighten me or should that sentence in the Plot section be deleted? For now I'm going to fix the quotation. Nicklob 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Kafka Quote in the Plot Section

message: How about a mention of Donnie's schizophrenia? I believe that this is a central theme of the movie, as Donnie portrays many obvious symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia (delusional paranoia, detachment from reality, visual hallucinations, etc.), and the movie goes as far as to clearly state that Donnie is schizophrenic.
:Because it doesn't specifically state it in the movie, it's original research, and isn't allowed. Fllmtlchcb 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does.  When Rose and Ed meet with Dr. Thurman, she tells them that Donnie is displaying the symptoms of a paranoid schizophrenic.  Although it's not a definite diagnosis, I would agree that it warrants a mention. 16 Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.25.205.90 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The doctor's diagnosis is clearly wrong when, at the end, he does indeed go back in time.  He wasn't schizophrenic and what was actually happening to him is already explained in the article.  The doctor's incorrect diagnosis is therefore not relevant.--Lord Galen 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it is correct, it remains that the doctor made that diagnosis, and as the doctor plays a significant role in the movie, her opinion would warrant mention at the very least. IMHO, the doctor and Donnie's parents are the anchor to "real life", keeping things as realistic as possible, to keep us guessing until the very end. Without that element of reality, it would just be another sci-fi with an astronomically suspended disbelief. I like to think of Donnie's schizophrenia as his tragic flaw, which he overcomes in the end. V-Man - T/C 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schizophrenia

message: One thing is not explained in the synopsis nor anywhere I can find: *How* did Donnie get the engine back into the Primary Universe? All I see is the engine falling when he's sitting on the car (It has dead Gretchen inside it.) and then it switches to the primary. How did he send it back? Telekineses? Any answer would be very appreciated. 69.152.231.56 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay for real

message: shouldn't soundtrack be on a different page? now this article is more about the soundtrack then the whole rest of the movie --62.251.90.73 14:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, you could be right there... - IMSoP 19:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page for soundtrack? 

message: The movie "Donnie Darko" is about Donnie's first successful quest in ending the temporal paradox cycle or "time-loop" which he is caught in (not unlike Bill Murray in the movie "Groundhog Day".)
When the engine from the Oct. 30 PU drops (into the past), the PU is gone, the TU is created. Similarly, when the engine in the Oct. 30 TU drops (when the LR/Donnie fails), the TU collapses, and the PU is reset, at the point we see in the beginning of the movie. This is the loop, and it continues until the engine does not drop in the TU because it is sent back to the PU by Donnie. Ending this repeating time-loop is directly how he saves the universe.
Evidence that Donnie Darko is caught within a repeating time-loop.
At the intro, Donnie is laughing (as if he remembers something that has happened previously) when looking at the sky. This is where the movie begins, and it is also where the tangent is reset and the loop begins when Donnie is not successful. Then the loop continues as we see when the engine drops into the past via a time corruption to create the tangent universe. On that previous previous quest , Donnie did not send the artifact back. He remembers something good from his experience in that tangent, and laughs (but not as much as when he laughs and laughs at the end of the movie after he is completely and finally successful in ending the looping time paradox by preventing the jet-engine from landing where it already exists).
When the engine crashed through the house, an alternate universe had been created by the falling jet-engine; however Frank-Bunny appeared before the engine crashed, before the Tangent Universe was created; therefore Frank-bunny must have traveled from another point in time ie a previous tangent universe in the repeating cycle.
In his bathroom mirror, Donnie sees Frank and starts stabbing Frank's eye through liquid. Evidence that Donnie knows / remembers something about Frank's injured eye from a previous TU.
In the theater when Frank-bunny has taken of his mask, Donnie asks what has happened to his eye. Frank turns his head and stares, and Donnie looks at the screen and starts to smile. Another clue that Donnie has done all of this before in the previous timeloops.
The only way Frank could have been killed by Donnie at the end of the movie was if Frank-Bunny had already saved Donnie at the beginning of the movie. The Manipulated Dead Frank-rabbit appears before he himself is assumed to be created when Frank is shot by Donnie, it follows that this Manipulated Dead Frank-rabbit could not have come from the Frank seen in the movie, but the Frank, shot by Donnie, in an unseen previous Tangent Universe. Clearly, this was not the same entity, as an existing thing cannot create itself for the first time. Each different Manipulated Dead entity has expired in the failed quest to guide Donnie to "use his Fourth Dimensional Power to send the Artifact back in time into the Primary Universe before the Black Hole collapses upon itself." Frank had to die in a previous tangent before coming back to rescue (and guide) Donnie. Since the tangent universe is eventually destroyed by being reset, this is how Frank initially died and then returned in the next tangent universe as the Manipulated Dead and guided Donnie to eventually shoot him (part of the Ensurance Trap set for Donnie to send the engine back).
___
I would like to refute this argument.
3PennyProphet 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groundhog Day explanation 

message: The article describes the film as a satire on public education, but the school in the film is a private school.
: I'd say it's a satire on education in general. --Agent Aquamarine 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education satire 

message: I think the article would be much better it the 'plot synopsis' was separated from the 'interpretation'.  Any comment?  The way it is now, there is a lot of good content, but it is not very readable (IMHO). ike9898 23:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
: I don't agree with the interpreation of the plot on here at all. I believe that Frank discovers time travel and saves Donnie's life, Donnie having died in the original timeline and become a local legend. However by saving Donnie's life it means Donnie will in turn kill him so that he can not go back in time and save Donnie's life.
::You probably need to watch the film again because the fact is, the "interpretation" listed here is official and accurate and whatever your talking about is WAAAY off the mark. 
:::Unfortunately, I do believe that Richard Kelley has tried to put an end to seperate interpretations of this film. Watch the Director's Cut with Commentary on to see what I mean. Your interpretation doesn't take into account the entire book of "The Philosophy of Time Travel" which talks about Frank being the Manipulated Dead. The MD are people who die in the tangent universe and therefore they can time travel through the Tangent and force the Living Receiver to close the Tangent. That pretty much makes your interpretation of everything null, since it becomes clear that Frank wasn't time travelling on his own, but rather as a pawn of the Tangent Universe. Clembo2021 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate synopsis and interpretation? 

message: There should be a seperate headline dedicated to the whole time-travel mess. 
A seperation of Synopsis and Interpration is necessarry. This article comes across as very unobjective. It's good but I think I'd like to see things re-evaluated, what is important? and then put into proper subdivision.
:I've put up what I believe is a fairly accurate synopsis of the whole time-travel mess on the Philosophy of Time Travel page. Have a look-see. CABAL 12:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Travel 

message: Any particular back up for this new section? Never caught a review that approached the movie from this angle, nor have I seen any comments online along these lines, though this can come down to what sort of pages I check out, and as such, I might have a limited view; so anyway: Any sources at all? Zeppocity 12:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I've removed the internal link to Gretchen Ross as it redirects back to here.  Recommend removing the Gretchen Ross redirection to Donnie Darko and leaving it as a non-existing page, so someone can create a proper stub.
: Hey, if Kitty Farmer has a page, makes sense for Gretchen to have one as well. Jpers36 16:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kitty Farmer Redirects here. 218.186.9.1 12:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gretchen Ross 

message: The main page says the film is set in Virginia.  But I'm pretty sure in a certain scene the principal or guidance counselor says that Donnie's Iowa test scores are exceptional.  Did I not hear correctly?
:the Iowa tests are a standardized test that many schools all over the nation take.  I took them, and I went to school in New Jersey, for example.  see Iowa Test of Basic Skills and Iowa Tests of Educational Development (I don't remember which of these two I took.  Maybe both.)  -lethe talk [ +] 05:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills while in grade school in Illinois. Jpers36 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia or Iowa? 

message: I took off some of the quotes. Quotes are supposed to be striking in some way and not all of them were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.105.62.132 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-18 02:02:59  (UTC)
:Actually, you mangled the "Quotes" section header and removed popular quotes, like the "I'm voting for Dukakis" quote. so I reverted. The Rod (☎ Smith) 02:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes do seem a bit excessive.  A few to illustrate would be appropriate, I think, but some of them, like the sister planning to vote for Dukakis, are not interesting by themselves (it is only funny for her father's reaction).  I agree with the quote cleanup.  Please also see WP:Don't Bite the Newbies.  --Fell Collar 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should add a Wikiquotes section, as for some, this is an eminently quoatable movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.25.205.90 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Shouldn't this link to the Australian Broadcasting corporation?
Why would there be a link to the Austrlian Broadcase Corporation? --Evilincarnate 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC?

message: Re this edit.  Frank definitely says man suit. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watched it last night; it is man suit. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be mistaken, but I believe I saw a shirt with Frank on it that has human in place of man. Although I could be mistaken. I know that the quote is man, but is there any justification for the mix-up? Straightxedger 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree... somebody was being politically correct by saying "human" instead of "man" which is specifically a gender in most circumstance, but to anybody who is not a fucking moron it would be known that it is referring to huMANity. 24.16.184.74 05:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Or, even simpler, Donnie is a man. –Pomte 07:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man suit 

message: Is it not worth mentioning that Donnie may in fact be an unreliable narrator? He has a history of mental illness, and the narration becomes arguably unreliable after the jet engine incident, which could have furthered Donnie's mental instability. I feel as if the director's commentary might actually be a ruse, similar to what David Lynch did with Mulholland Drive. Certain choices (e.g. the fat man randomly being present when Gretchen and Donnie are in the woods) make me believe that Donnie is not perceiving things accurately. Also, Gretchen appears after the jet engine incident too.      -Will
:The fat man is not a random presence.  He is an FAA investigator who has been assigned to keep tabs on Donnie. Jpers36 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narration Reliability 

message: I think we really ought to consider the usefulness of the rather expansive quotes section.  What do the quotes contribute to the article?  Clearly not every line from the movie deserves to be included.  To keep this from happening (as has been the trend), I think we should try to find a rule of thumb for putting a quote in or keeping it out.  Personally, I'm of the opinion that quotes ought to be used only as concrete examples, and that the entire section could be dissolved, with quotes that serve as examples moved to the appropriate places.  --Fell Collar 17:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there seem to be no objections, I'll move the quotes section here for redistribution throughout the article.  I have finals this week and may not be able to do much right away.  Please help as you can.  --Fell Collar 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote Cleanup

message: Please help put appropriate quotes from this section back into the article as concrete examples in the main body.  --Fell Collar 13:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes for Redistribution

message: I edited the parts that did sound like advertisement.
Dakpowers 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable writing 

message: The interpretation I'm seeing in the main article seems to be that Frank appearing before the jet plane crahes into the Darko's house means Frank is a manipulated dead from a PREVIOUS Tangent Universe. I move to correct this. As we see in one of the "eye" shots in the movie, the jet engine passes through a dense cloud layer during it's descent. This is the barrier element, and hence, the Tangent Universe actually begins once it exits this cloud layer. Therefore we can assume that it is during the time AFTER it's transition backwards in time to the TU, but BEFORE it reaches the ground, that Donnie's first conversation with Frank occurs. Sadpickle 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a reference for this interpretation?  --Fell Collar 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank appearance correlates with the tangent universe 

message: *Merge Cliffb 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: These two votes were moved here from Talk:Roberta Sparrow --Zoz (t) 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Article was merged. --Zoz (t) 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[Roberta Sparrow]] 

message: *I agree with the merger. This article is one user's essay on a minor character in a movie and belongs on their blog, not Wikipedia. --87.82.23.37 21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: These two votes were moved here from Talk:Jim Cunningham (Donnie Darko) --Zoz (t) 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Article was merged. --Zoz (t) 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[Jim Cunningham (Donnie Darko)|Jim Cunningham]] 

message: *if this isn't merged it should be deleted. not even close to wikipedia standards Jporcaro 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: These two votes were moved here from Talk:Frank (Donnie Darko) --Zoz (t) 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Article was merged. --Zoz (t) 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[Frank (Donnie Darko)]] 

message: This section is commentary. Discuss. Jonathan F 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like original research. Delete from article unless there are sources that this is some sort of 'catchphrase' (doubtful). Manmonk 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if it's a catchphrase but it seems to be quoted from Asimov . I think let's cut it down to a couple of lines and move it to the Trivia section. --Zoz (t) 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "I'm Voting for Dukakis"

message: ok the opening sentences say he sees a rabbit. But donnie knows its a man in a rabbit suit. in the theatre he asks whyhe wears that stupid rabbit suit. so shouldnt the intro say he sees a guy in a rabbit suit? --Atticus2020 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intro is fine, because at the beginning of the film (strictly speaking) he does have visions of a rabbit, and only later do we find out that he's only wearing a rabbit suit. At any rate, I've changed Donnie_Darko#Frank to mention he's really a man in a rabbit suit. --Zoz (t) 11:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The first post in this section only has half the quote. Frank answers 'why are you wearing that stupid man suit'? The director is asking the audience to accept a facade that both he and the directors know is suspect as part of the theme of questioning who we think we are and what we think is real. In any case, I think 'bipedal rabbit' makes it clear enough that this isn't a normal rabbit we're talking about. Antonrojo 15:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though none of the people above will likely ever read this, i will add my thoughts anyway. It should say "Person in a bunny suit" for a few reasons: When someone is describing the movie, and they say that the protagonist sees a a rabbit in a golf course, people (myself included) will imeddietly imagine an actual rabbit. but if you say "the protagonist sees a person wearing a bunny suit" people will imagine something far more like what is portrayed in the movie. Second, Do you really think Donnie thought that the thing he was seeing was a real rabbit? of course not. He even says as much in the scene where Frank reveals himself to Donnie in the movie theattre. 218.186.9.1 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rabbit vs. Rabbit Suit

message: When Cunningham died? I don't remember that from the film.
Wait a second. Cunningham goes to prison. I think he kills himself in the reality after Donnie's death. :s sorry im not sure its just no ones answered here a while.
* Cunningham never died in the movie.  There is no implication that this had or would happen. Nbruschi 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Hour and Minute was it......... 

message: If Frank is the manipulated dead because he died in the tangent universe, who called Donnie out of his bed to create the other universe where Frank died?
Because those that are killed in the parallel universe become messengers who have the ability to travel  back and forth in this same parrallel universe.--Net2rock 21:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from what i can get from the commentary is that frank was a messenger simply because he was "chosen" by the technology creating the tangant universe, otherwise gretchen wouldv'e been a messenger too.:) Somerset219 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: who's he? What's etc etc? What's stuff like that? I have no idea who you are, who you're referencing or talking about. Somerset219 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank 

message: This seems to be fairly deeply entrenched, but I'll give it a go anyway. The Blockbuster card we see near the end of the movie isn't an anachronism. I joined Blockbuster in 1988 (at least five months before the time the movie was meant to take place) and the card I got the very first day looked identical to the one in this movie. (in fact my "modern" card is a gold one with a magnetic strip on the back). (DrZarkov 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the blockbuster card was there for free advertisement by the director, according to the directors cut. Somerset219 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blockbuster

message: I've read the plot synopsis, and I'm confused as to what happens and when in the movie. For example, when does Donnie meet Frank the person and when does he realise he's the same as Frank the bunny? I think the plot needs two subsections. First, a section that describes the events of the movie in the order they occur in the movie. And a second section that describe the official interpretation (i.e. the text that is already there). That would make it a lot easier to understand for people who haven't seen the movie (like me). Thanks to the person willing to help out! -- Ritchy 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if there are multiple reliable sources to back up each interpretation, so it doesn't look like randomly selected reviewers' opinions. And then of course there are those who bash the ending as an unimaginative cop-out. –Pomte 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: This quote: *Frank Capra's film Harvey (and the play upon which it is based) also contains a large rabbit-like figure that only the main character can see.
I changed to "Henry Koster's film...", as Harvey was not associated in any way whatsoever with Capra, and was directed, in actuality, by Henry Koster. HaeSuse 20:22 11 August 2006 (UTC)
First off, I find the mentioning of "Harvey" to be sort of out of place - at least in a section that's supposed to contain trivia about or connected to Donnie Darko - unless of course, there's a source connecting the two. Otherwise, I doubt that being a large invisible rabbit is good enough to be included.
Second, I'd like to add that especially the pilosophy around Donnie being a "Living Receiver", has a strong equivalent in the plot of The Maxx, a comic book (from the 1990ies) written by Sam Kieth, tho time-travel is not part of it. While unconscious after being hit by a car a person comes into contact with matter from a parallel reality which transforms him into The Maxx. The whole event also connects him to Julie Winters and, as there are lessons to be learnt, they (but mostly Maxx) can't help but do what they do. To round off the confusion for everybody who HASN'T read The Maxx: Maxx is Julie's spirit animal. . . which happens to be a rabbit!
Should this be added to the trivia section?
Oh and the 42 minutes of Donnie's remaining time doubtlessly point to "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"! And ain't the full time some real cycle in our world? The Moon? -80.135.152.249 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvey reference in trivia section

message: I removed the Offshooting Theories section, as it meets the conditions of  what Wikipedia is not as original research:
If we believe that undead/dead Frank is the voice of God, this means that human Frank and dead Frank are not the same people at all; instead God's vessel has been chosen to appear in the form of the dead Frank. With this interpretation, when dead Frank tells Donnie "I'm so sorry" in the movie theater, he is not referring to the death of Gretchen, but to the fact that Donnie must give his own life to save the universe.
It should also be noted that this theory is substantiated by the reference to "The Last Temptation of Christ" during the fright night double feature. This draws a parrallel between the two films, where in The Last Temptation Christ is tempted with the choice of having his own life, or choosing the life of those whom he loves (or wishes to save). Donnie too is confronted with the same choice to save Gretchen or to save himself. In the end, it could be argued that he choses God's path, and sacrifices himself. This is also reflected in the guilt of all of the Manipulated Living, similar to the statment often made by some Christians: "We all Crucified Christ".
If this is not original thought and you can cite a respectable source for this interpretation, you may add this back in. -Orayzio 08:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Opinions, Please 

message: I edited the trivia section and removed a few items that I thought should be mentioned here:
*As noted in my edit summary, I removed "very relevant" from the sentence about the double feature on the grounds that it does not represent a neutral point-of-view, is not backed up with references, and (most importantly) shouldn't be in the "trivia" section if it's that important.
*I removed "The poster on Donnie's bedroom wall is M. C. Escher's "Eye"" on the basis that it is not noteworthy. It's no more noteworthy than the brand of jeans that Donnie wears or anything else about the contents of his house.
*I removed "Easter Egg: Frank's car is driven past Donnie's in the very first scene." because, first, it's not an Easter egg (media) and second, it's not noteworthy. I almost removed the item about the child actor that appears in three different scenes, but I decided to leave it in.
*I removed "When watching the video Cunningham gave the class to view, a small boy runs to hug Cunningham, he hugs him in return, but while Cunningham releases the boy, he grabs the child's bottom quickly giving a small hint to his perversity." because the end of the sentence is pure speculation or should be backed by a primary source.
*Finally, I removed the Last Temptation section comparison because it's been removed and reinserted repeatedly and because it should be backed up with references (if, in fact, several notable sources have commented on it). Also, it doesn't belong in the trivia section. If someone can find several notable sources backing up the comparison of the two films, it should be placed in the Interpretations section.
Also, I tried to remove redundant links - wikilinks should appear only for the the first occurrence of the subject in the article. (For example, The Evil Dead should be wiki-linked only the first time it appears in the article. 
-Orayzio 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also edited the trivia section a bit, taking out the part that confused Ariel the Unicorn/Pony with Ariel from the Disney movie. 16 Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.25.205.90 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Cleanup 

message: I had previously removed the following line from the article:
:Some fans and critics feel that the inclusion of the book excerpts gives away too much.
with the edit summary "the ext lked review (with a decayed link) does not support this assertion."
This edit was reverted by Longlivefolkmusic with the edit summary "please do not delete a cited bit on the appearance of the chapters in the Director's cut."
My numbered responses are:
# The external link is decayed (500 error), so it doesn't support anything.  It would be nice if people reverting would actually look at what they are reverting to.
# The new location of the review here, which I bothered to look at before removing, has this to say about the chapters: ""The Director's Cut uses a good deal more of the writing from Sparrow's book than the first movie did to help make more literal exactly what is happening to Donnie. That the new text still doesn't clear things up entirely is beside the point."  This does not support the assertion given in the article. (Where is the "gives away too much" part?)
# Unless the external link is going to a review aggregator or something similar, it cannot support multiple persons feelings, per "Some fans and critics feel".  This is a classic weasel wording, refusing to state WHO are these critics.  
In summation, bad link to a review that doesn't support a weasel-worded assertion.  I'm removing the line again. I obviously would have no problems if someone would bother placing a citation (which is different from an unsupportive external link) stating something like "Critic John Smith hates the chapters" with a backing source.- BanyanTree 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link 

message: I'm surprised there is no mention of the film's website other than in external links. Unless I am mistaken, it was the only place where the information from The Philosphy of Time Travel could be found prior to the release of the Director's Cut.
It also includes several things related to the story that I believe are considered canon. Off the top of my head:
-Cunningham commits suicide
-There is a government agency (I don't recall if its name is given) that is aware of the tangent universe, and appears to be trying to suppress all knowledge of it
-Monitoff is killed in a car accident (presumably for his knowledge of The Philosophy of Time Travel and possibly his connection to Donnie), and it is implied that the aforementioned government agency is behind the accident (if I remember correctly, there is a part that says he was hit by a black SUV that quickly drove away)
-The same government agency looks at the serial number from the jet engine (from the tangent universe), and finds the intact plane (residing in the primary universe) that also has a jet engine with that serial number, which allows the agency to confirm that the engine is from the tangent universe
It wouldn't make sense to include these details in the plot summary, but I think it seems perfectly reasonable to have a section titled something along the lines of "Story Details Revealed on the Film's Website." There is a considerable amount of information there that seems quite relevant.Smooth Nick 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website 

message: Does anyone else think it is redundant to have this article entitled "Donnie Darko (film)" as opposed to just "Donnie Darko?" (Some discussion would have been good before moving the article around) V-Man737 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved to pave way for a disambiguation page between the film article and the newly-created Donnie Darko (character). Someone has just redirected the disambig back here. I agree that this should move back to Donnie Darko, regardless of whether the character article remains (see its talk page). Pomte 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting! Yeah, that character page isn't exactly FA status. Sad that there aren't other movies with Donnie in them to justify an article like that. I'll keep a weather eye out for the AfD. V-Man737 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry guys, that was me. I guess I should have checked here before doing that kind of thing. Depressed Marvin 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uhm

message: The Song "Mad World" (the Michael Andrews cover) from the ending montage is later used in the commercials for the XBOX 360 Video Game Gears of War
 
-- Added this to the Pop. Culture section...
Nincubus99x 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: source? V-Man737 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is described at Mad World. This isn't Donnie Darko in popular culture, but a song made famous by Donnie Darko in popular culture, so it's questionable whether it should be mentioned here. What do others think? –Pomte 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If i am not mistaken the Michael Andrews cover of the song was made exclusively for Donnie Darko. So if anything uses the Michael Andrews cover of the song they are essentialy refrencing Donnie Darko 218.186.9.1 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that an XBOX game is essentially referencing Donnie Darko in this way. Even so, look how many TV appearances Mad World has made. They can't all fit here. –Pomte 06:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mad world" in pop culture 

message: I was replaying the game Bully when I noticed that on the games Halloween sequence the main character, Jimmy, is wearing a costume not too unlike Donnie's, is it worth mentioning?Michael Cook 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source that asserts this, you could cite it in the article. V-Man - T/C 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pop culture 

message: why does it say "see also franz kafka" in the cellar door being the most beautiful words part? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.69.36 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the...! I thought I got rid of it! Well, it's gone now. V-Man - T/C 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cellar door 

message: I have a problem with the literature in the PLOT section. "Donnie's mother and sister experience turbulence on their return flight as Donnie telekinetically detaches an engine from their plane." Donnie did NOT 'telekinetically' detach the engine from that airplane. That engine was going to fall off no matter what due to the 'time-loop' paradox. Their was also no evidence of Donnie having telekinesis’ through out the movie. please revise.Hurleyman 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the meaning to the movie according to the director. You should get the director's cut and go over the stuff in it and then you'll understand too that Donnie in the parralel dimension has to save the world, and the only way he can do it is by destroying the parralel world by sending the jet engine through time and killing himself in the past. The beauty of the first film is that there is no real explanation. Acidburn24m 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have the directors cut and I'm not disputing what the 'point' is because thats what I believe also. Its just that he never used telekinesis at any point in the movie to do anything let alone make an engine come off an airplane. That engine was going to fall off anyways because of the turbalance the worm hole caused. Saying that Donnie made the engine fall off with his mind is false information.Hurleyman 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE-WRITE 

message: Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Donniedarkodvd.jpeg

message: This article needs some serious spoiler tags. Sadly I do not know how to add them.
: Any plot summary within an article about a movie is going to contain spoilers. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. –Pomte 09:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Tags? 

message: Is it just me, or does his therapist's office look exactly like that of none other than Sigmund Freud's? I say this after seeing this photo in the Psychology portal. Perhaps this can be added to the article? CrimsonScholar 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Therapist's Office 

message: I have updated the plot summary using an older (and more in-depth) analysis of the movie that was written earlier but has since been taken out. Also, I added the spoiler tags. -- Sharkface217 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: *In South Park episode "Make Love, Not Warcraft" Cartman says a phrase "If you had a chance right now to go back in time and stop Hitler, would you do it?" which is similar to one Gretchen says in the movie. Any ideas? -- Sharpbee 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park reference 

message: This is me remembering, and I haven't bothered to Google anything yet, but I recall hearing that a lot of the lack of advertising it got had to do with the fact that it was coming out so close to the WTC disaster and the general distaste at the time for anything involving airplanes in accidents... so they decided to downplay the advertising, not run it in that many theaters (or at least not push for a wider release later on) and so on.... am I completely incorrect here?  If not, shouldn't there be a note about that in the release?  As written, the line about "released to a tepid response"... shouldn't that have some kind of note about how they are related?  Assuming, at least, someone out there suggested that they are related.69.64.10.249 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donnie Darko, 2001, Advertising, limited Release, and WTC 

message: there aren't any, even vague, references to drugs in this film.
unless it means the medicinal "pills".
am i wrong?--82.26.82.215 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's lots of drinking, tobacco smoking, and a brief shot of something being snorted during school. —Viriditas | Talk 06:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPAA R rating "drug content" 

message: This movie was based off of the High school that Richard Kelly attended in Midlothian, Virginia Midlothian High School.
:I've removed both instances of this from the article unless someone has a good source to add.  This topic was addressed in The Donnie Darko Book (p. X) in an interview by Kevin Conroy Scott, but aside from talking about the High School he attended, Kelly does not claim that the school in the film was based on Midlothian.  Now, perhaps someone can find the actual interview where he says it is and add it back into the article. —Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midlothian High School 

message: Does anyone know why he was chosen or if he had any other associations with the film? Jepetto (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "WashPo says he was a friend of the director, Richard Kelly. Skomorokh 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin smith commentary 

message: This entire section of the article seems a random list of trivia.  Delete? 99.174.233.4 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, delete it. These sections are a nuisance on Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: Steven seagal is not in this movie . --208.118.200.168 (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: The film is listed as having a $4.5 million budget and a $6 million budget. A similar discrepancy exists for revenue. Not sure which numbers are correct, but certainly not all of them are. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.168.121 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted, and thanks for the tip.  I don't know which figures are correct either, so I've raised the issue at the Films Wikiproject (). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And received a response within 10 minutes.  I've updated the page according to Box Office Mojo.  The inconsistency with revenue might have been because the Box Office Mojo page doesn't have data for total lifetime gross outside the U.S., so misleadingly gives the U.S figure as the total worldwide total gross figure ().  Don't know what happened with the budget figure though.  We still need a source for worldwide gross in the lead.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, seems Box Office Mojo might be wrong about this one.  I'll fix the article according to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Budget_and_revenue_for_Donnie_Darko. (Edit: since archived here.) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget & Revenue inconsistencies