Talk:Déjà Vu (2006 film)

message: :Image:Deja vu ver2.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) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Deja vu ver2.jpg

message: The girl was found dead in a pink dress, but she was being held captive by the terrorist wearing  jeans and a shirt. This proves that Denzel went back to the past once left her in the house and then went to the dock. The terrorist meanwhile drove to her home and killed and her. That's why she is found dead in the pink dress with the fingers cut off.
And that's why Denzel found "u can save her" written on the wall even though she was already dead at the beginning of the movie.
Denzel then goes back to the past again but this time takes her with him in the pink dress again, but this time she is not killed by him.
The above IMO would greatly increase the plot's understanding by the public, which come over here trying to understand this complex plot but finds only a few lines of information. I  know the the abose need to be worked on in order to have its quality increased, but still it would do a great favor to the reader. 
What do you think?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot description is incomplete

message: I have removed :Image:Deja vu ver2.jpg, the French poster, because generally only 1 Fair use image is allowed per article, especially if they are images that are of the same thing, in this case, posters of the same film. Apparently, this French poster has been added because it contains a definition of the phrase déjà vu in French. However, per Fair use rules, the definition can easily be replicated in text form, and in English, provided it has a reliable source. Also, the Fair use rationale is a generic one, and does not in anyway state why two Fair use posters should be in the same article, nor why this particular one is relevant because of the French definition, and why that info cannot be conveyed by other means. As such, I have placed an IFD tag on the image page. 
Btw, the French Wiki article, fr:Déjà Vu, does not have a poster, and so this poster could be transfered there, assuming the French WP allows Fair-use images. If it does not, then perhaps that explains the persistance of IP users re-adding the image here. However, that's not sufficient legal reason to keep two FU images. - BillCJ (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: French poster removed

message: I extended the description of the plot.  This is not original research or my opinion, but rather the true plot of movie.  I hope I explained it well enough but if you read it closely, you can tell that this really is the only possible plot for the movie, as evidenced from scenes in the movie.  She cannot be found dead in her red dress unless Doug had already tried to rescue her once and failed.  If someone doesn't realize how this is a necessary plot detail, then this someone doesn't understand the movie.  Please don't delete this new section.  Just because something isn't expressly stated in the movie does not mean that it isn't an integral part of the plot.
I have actually gotten approval from Bill Marsilii, the film writer, that my interpretation of the film is correct.  He quoted me on blog and I will look for the quote if evidence is needed for these plot details, although I think evidence from the movie is evidence enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonrio (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Key word: "my interpretation". That places what you have written squarely within the bounds of WP's Original Research policy as a synthesis of existing material. Please read the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V policy pages carefully before responding. You will note that blogs are not allowed as sources. If you can find a publised source (internet or print) such as an interview with the author, then that can be used here. At this point, the consesus is to exclude your material at this point. It would be good if you'd remove the material on your own as a gesture of good faith, as I have no desire. Also, please be aware of WP's Three-revert policy, which cand result in temporary or permanent blocks for continual reversions. Thanks for your cooperations on this matter, and I trust we will not need intervention to abide by policies. - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot extended

message: Reference number 2 is to a quote by Bill Marsilii, who wrote the script to Deja Vu along with Terry Rossio.  He thanks me for laying out the intricacies of the timeline(s) within the plot for Deja Vu.  If you look at my post which he is referencing, you will see how I wrote out exactly what is outlined in the timelines I have posted here in the Deja Vu article at wikipedia.  Since i have included a direct quote from the writer, may I please remove the  and
 from the article?  Wildonrio (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added reference to a quote by screenwriter Bill Marsilii

message: Reference number 3 is to a quote by Terry Rossio, who wrote the script to Deja Vu along with Bill Marsilii.  I went to his website (wordplayer.com) and asked if he could come read what I have written here at wikipedia and say whether he approves or not.  He says "Your interpretation (and chart) are spot on, and you make a compelling case."  I added a reference to it, but for some reason wordplayer.com (Terry's website where he said this) doesn't let you link directly to the post.  If (using Mozilla) you right click and say "copy the link location" and paste in the URL manually then it will go there.  I also removed the Original Research and Synthesis sections from the "More plot details which must be assumed" section, since I added references by both the writers of the movie to show they approve.  Wildonrio (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added reference to a quote by screenwriter Terry Rossio

message: I added a plot summary (as seen in the film), as I found the "extra-plot details" to be too confusing with the multiple timelines.  This would probably also make more sense to someone watching the movie for the first time.  I deliberately kept the plot elements vague so as not to make the plot section unnecessarily long.
Wxkat (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added plot details as seen in the film 

message: I've read through your Four Timeline theory and they match what I wrote in IMdb for the second through fifth trips back in time. His first trip back, I think that he died. When we see him on the gurney in the hospital, he has the words "Revive Me" written on his chest. BUT, when we see him step into the time machine he was never prepped by writing "Revive Me" on his chest. What we see in the movie is everything up to when he steps into the time machine for the first time, and then everything after he arrives in the fifth timeline. Please check with the writers about his first death and the significance of "Revive Me".
Firstlensman (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know they didn't write that on his chest and we just didn't see it? That's quite an assumption you are making there, one with no support from the writers either. Wildonrio (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable Fifth Timeline 

message: *Concerning the lead, I modeled it after Little Miss Sunshine; I can see from what Déjà Vu was missing that it does not have enough information in the "Production" section to cover all of the points that Little Miss Sunshine covered. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Starstriker's Notes

message: The alternative timelines section has been re-added to this article after a GA review by several edtiors stated it needed removal in order to pass GA status. Since this section has not changed since the GA review please remove it or the article will face WP:GAR and maybe delisted.Million_Moments (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no responce to my request, I have removed this section myself as is advised at tge WP:GAR page. If it is re-added then it will go to WP:GAR and may be delisted. Million_Moments (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'm really sorry I didn't get to this earlier... --Starstriker7(Talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok it was Christmas and new years! Million_Moments (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of this! —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative timelines

message: I moved the page to "2006 film", as this isn't the only film with this title. I also removed the accents, as my thoughts are that the average reader isn't going to know how to put the accents on the letters when they are searching for the title. Now, naming conventions may permit this, so someone might want to check behind me on this. Regardless of that, it isn't the only "film" with that exact title, so it should be given a year identifier.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: * Can anybody explain what snow white really means. [ AR ] It's not white water in frozen form.--88.77.211.30 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Technical knowledge ''' 

message: Didn't this article used to have a great chart that explained the 4 timelines simply?
I thought I saw it here, but if not it's on the web somewhere and would be a huge addition to this article and help people understand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.145.175.190 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Chart 

message: You are so obsessed with the letter of the rules that you ignore common sense and the facts (ironically you do this despite the existence of a wikipedia rule about common sense and about ignoring rules if they go against the spirit of the rules, against the goals of wikipedia, or if they produce an inferior work).  So we are left with mandates to remove plot points crucial to the movie and greater misunderstanding being spread by wikipedia.  Good job. You are spreading misinformation under the guise of providing better information for the masses.   
Now consider this.  Say in a movie character A gets into a car.  The next shot has said character suddenly driving away but there is no scene of him physically starting the engine and turning the key.  In fact, this second shot is from the outside so we can't really even see who's driving.  Well did he start the engine? Did he drive away?
Things that happen off screen still happen and do not need a reference.
Starstriker7, you understand what the issues all are.  You know that the removal of the explanation of events prior to the movie is crucial for understanding the plot.  To leave that out is to misinform.  Do you agree or disagree that in this case wikipedia is misinforming people by passing off a partially complete plot summary full of plot holes as the entire story?
Perhaps looking at the Memento film article could be useful.
64.145.175.190 (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events prior to the first two timelines removed again! 

message: The movie Pulp Fiction has no explicit mention in the movie that the scenes are arranged in non-chronological order and yet its wikipedia article plot section describes the story chronologically.   Surely the same thing applied here.  As it stands the Deja Vu plot summary is extremely misleading 74.197.250.31 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the chunk of original research which accompanied this rant once again. The plot section can be reworded to point out that events do not occur in chronological order if that is required, but the huge "timeline" image is entirely inappropriate original research. It is not our place to analyse plots for people. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris you are clearly ignoring the good faith rule and clearly have not seen the movie because all the scenes are in chronological order. 69.181.250.72 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulp Fiction 

message: This is a great film. What's the problem with the critics? The only thing missing is that Denzel (in the film) should have explained that IF his fingerprints were in the apartment, then he must have been there - ergo, he was there. Time to switch on the time machine.--andreasegde (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Great

message: The time lines like depicted are interesting, but somehow irritating. Isn#t it a circle system in time, which is interrupted by the viewers?_ so what, I recognized  another axes, a spinning wheel, which doesn't run like time is normaly told. So the tunnel to go back is possible...--Danaide (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Buy yourself a time machine, because it's hard to remember what you did yesterday. That is what the film is actually about.--andreasegde (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  center axes 

message: At one point during the film Special Agent McCready acknowledges Doug Carlin's credentials as having been one of the primary investigators of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
This can be added again to Similarities between Timothy McVeigh and Carroll Oerstadt once a source has been found. --Peppagetlk 18:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed original research 

message: The timeline image is certainly helpful, but I don't know if its entirely accurate. It indicates that the entirety of what we see in the movie takes place on the third and fourth timelines. It states that, at the end of Timeline 4 (ie the last scene of the film), "Carroll goes back to Claire's house but she isn't there." This is written in black text which means its not shown in the film. However, Carroll does not do this. We see in the film that immediately after setting the bomb and preparing himself to ride up to the bridge to watch the explosion, Carroll notices his own car parked on the sidewalk and realizes that something is amiss. He dismounts his motorcycle and rushes back onto the ferry, where he eventually meets Doug, gets into a gunfight, and dies. Carroll never goes back to Claire's house and realizes that she's not there...Carroll goes right back onto the ferry. 192.83.228.119 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline image 

message: I'm struggling to see any value in the timeline image for these reasons:
* Many readers have pointed out inaccuracies in its text. (As above)
* It's original research: the main "sources" given, far from stating canon, thank the writer for their efforts in their speculation. One of them offers alternative theories.
* You can't add sources to individual lines of text because it's one big image.
* It mostly deals with banal/unimportant areas of the plot. i.e. you can watch the film to its fullest without even considering the notion of four timelines.
* It's very confusing. The numbering of Doug1 and Doug2 makes no sense.
* Even with four timelines, it still can't explain how Doug's laser pointer went through a computer screen and ended up in the past.
It's also
* completely illegible when viewed inline in the article due to scaling of the text.
* rendered in a hideous, nonstandard font without antialiasing.
* rasterized
* completely inaccessible to screenreaders despite being almost all text.
In summary, it stands out like a sore thumb. I've been bold. goodbye image. 86.154.97.223 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline image part 2 

message: The opening plot involving Carlin hearing his ringtone from a body bag (the implication being that the person in the body bag really is him, not just someone else that happened to have an identical ringtone), implies that he carried his cellphone back with him when he travelled through time.  If it really was the ringtone and not an alarm/reminder, that means he left the cellphone switched on when travelling through time, so the cellphone network would have seen two identical cellphones (at one point in the same location) with identical IMEI and SIMs, and one of these got the incoming call but the other did not.  Does anyone have a reference about whether this is what would really happen?  or is it more likely that both phones would ring, or that neither would work at all.  (+ is there anything in the movie to definitely indicate it was a ringtone and not just a PDA alarm?) 82.26.5.210 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cellphone network's reaction to identical phones? 

message: What is wondering me, is why Oerstadt calls Kuchever for her car, 7 hours before his car got shot?
--91.37.179.56 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure there was a comment about him trying several possibilities - called her, but dropped that when he gpt the other vehicle, them went back to her after Minuti messed his plans. -- Beardo (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cars

message: Briefly the  film is based on the theory of Multiverse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse ) . What describes in the plot is completely wrong.The films doesn't depict  any time travel at all as described in the plot section. In fact , film describes about multiple universe theorem clearly. Vinodsreehari (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Explanation given in the movie; 2) Brian Greene's explanation; 3) Pedia's explanation. It seems to me that in the film there are the idea of time travel through a wormhole, and a specific idea of parallel universes which exclude each other. --79.26.63.247 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot description is wrong 

message: Did anyone notice that it's the first film to portray an African American traveling time ? --81.66.217.182 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Americans travel time 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Déjà Vu (2006 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309045830/http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10474.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10474.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://legacy.fanboyplanet.com/interviews/mc-briangreene.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184217/http://www.saturnawards.org:80/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html#scifi
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Déjà Vu (2006 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:
*Added  tag to http://legacy.fanboyplanet.com/interviews/mc-briangreene.php%20%22the%20way%20I%20try%20to%20explain%20wormholes%20in%20terms%20of%20bending%20paper%20and%20connecting%20the%20corners%2C%20that%27s%20there%20in%20the%20film%20and%20it%20was%20fun%20to%20see%20that%20that%20made%20it%20in%22
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dejavu22nov22%2C0%2C5359121.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211202448/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_11_21/ai_n27098586 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_11_21/ai_n27098586/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saturnawards.org/past.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) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Déjà Vu (2006 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013042342/http://movies.about.com/od/washingtondenzel/a/dejavu020706.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/washingtondenzel/a/dejavu020706.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007222753/http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavuts111606.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavuts111606.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003095208/http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavujc111606.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavujc111606.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213040724/http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/gr/dejavu041707.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/gr/dejavu041707.htm
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) 06:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified