Talk:Crash (2004 film)/Archive 1

message: Whether you personally agree with it or not, a section on criticism for this film is worthy of creation. For example, the conservative view that it was another "racial guilt trip," the accusations that it was cliched or unoriginal, and the reaction from supporters of Munich and Brokeback Mountain over its win. --AWF
:Is a section which basically says that Brokeback Mountain "deserved" the Oscar over Crash really necessary in the article? Jiggz84 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I though Brokeback Mountain was mediocre, but Crash is all sorts of awful - in short it's an oversimplification of an actual problem portrayed with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face. Any criticism to this afterschool special should remain. Igorrr 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Please read discussions before editing? Towsonu2003 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think something is wrong in the article, you can change it. No need to complain. --CodeGeneratR 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree with the complaint as well as with CodeGeneratR's advice. But it is not possible to fix it, as any attempt is labeled as POV / NPOV. Very unfortunate. Towsonu2003 05:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simply cite your contributions so they don't appear as commentary and/or original research, and there would be no problem.  This article is not an op-ed. -- MisterHand 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. --CodeGeneratR 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I too wish that someone would. I recognize it's difficult to do proper justice to this topic, but don't take that as discouragement :-) --CodeGeneratR 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I cleaned up what I found, and removed the tag. If you see anything I missed, please feel free to let me know and I'll fix that too. Rhobite 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the article 

message: :Add any additional comments
I'm umming and ahhing about this one - IMDb lists films by their first public showing of any kind - if you look at the release dates page, you can see this was the 2004 Toronto Film Festival, but the film wasn't actually released to cinemas until the following year. Do we have a standard for cases like this? sjorford (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the DVD box cover also says 2004. If I'm not mistaken, many movies are shown at smaller venues or at festivals the year before their major run, so that they may qualify for the Academy Awards in the year of their major release. Even so, the official year ought to be reflected in the title.--CodeGeneratR 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've moved the article per this discussion.  —Cleared as filed. 20:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --CodeGeneratR 01:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In that case, should the "Released" date be changed to reflect the original TIFF screening of 	September 10th, 2004? Other movies listed on Wikipedia are like that. WiZZLa 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There is this ongoing "debate" between Roger Ebert, who stated that Crash was the best film of the year, and Foundas, who believes it was one of the worst. Is this notable enough to be mentioned in the article? Ebert has defended Crash as the best film of 2005; and Foundas responded to Ebert's "critic bait" by defending his own original position on the film -- so far, Ebert has not responded as of yet. There was also a large number of readers who sent letters in to the Chicago Sun Times either defending or condemning Crash.
If Ebert has not responded, how is this an ongoing debate?   Even if this is relevant, why is this meaningless tidbit included twice?74.99.213.103 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundas V.S. Ebert Debate 

message: Please don't be scared to describe racism and how it is depicted in this movie. The movie is about racism, yet the wiki entry did not have anything about racism. This is not POV, this is how you write about a movie that examines a racist society. Towsonu2003 05:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that racism is central to this film, and the article should discuss this theme. However, I had to revert the description you wrote since it expresses opinions. We shouldn't conclude that the movie is successful in some ways, but fails in other ways. We certainly shouldn't write that American society is "deeply racist". Those are statements of opinion. There is still room for more discussion of racial themes in this article, though. Rhobite 05:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraphs removed are not at all neutral.  They read like commentary and original research.  If you can attribute these opinions to, say, a notable critic, complete with citations, then they can be included in the article.  But not as currently worded. -- MisterHand 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I think the film is garbage too. I just think you're confusing your own interpretation of the film with undeniable truth. It's your opinion that these characters are depicted as stereotypes.. one I share to a certain extent. But it's still an opinion, even if you believe it coincides with the truth. If you find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia without separating your own beliefs from what you write, you may be better off elsewhere. Rhobite 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Philosophy student, eh? If you think the NPOV policy is equivalent to relativism, you haven't read it closely enough. And as I said, if you believe that our articles should express judgments about the meanings of movies, characters, etc. you are editing the wrong encyclopedia. We cannot interpret movies and express these interpretations as if they are facts. Rhobite 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone tell me since when latino and middle eastern were races?  I would love to know.  Last time I checked latino (off Latin) and Middle Eastern were part of the caucasian race. Casey14 01:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism and the movie 

message: I hope this doesn't stir too much contraversy. I did a very minor edit to Flanagan's description. I found that simply saying that 'convincing graham into a corrupt deal' just made him seem like a negative character. Although his position and actions may seem corrupt and the controversy surrounding affirmative action in government as legitimate or even percieved as racist by some. I thought this was very pertinant to Flanagan's character, and should have been mentioned as his intentions.Arthur5005 06:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flanagan's Importance 

message: I'm a huge fan of this film, and I couldn't believe some of the generalizations that people where making on the characters. For example "Graham accepting a corrupt deal, and putting an innocent man in prison to further his career". These blanket statements border on racism. If I hadn't seen this movie, I'd label Graham as being simply a greedy a-hole, who had no regard for the law as a black detective to begin with, (he was against the deal at first). Although some would argue that he actually is a greedy a-hole, to leave out the otherside is meaningless. It's in the nature of this film to have arguments for both sides on all characters. What's great about this movie is that all the characters have many different depths of analysis. You see what you believe to a be a stereotype, and then they surprise you with a different side, break it, or fullfil it.
I believe we need a rewrite and a seperate section for balanced analysis of each conflict between all the characters. This would avoid the rewrite wars on each character, and make this article much more credible to fairness considering the nature of this film. I have no doubt that some people feel a certain way on a characters but all sides NEED to be discussed here. And yes I did add a whole bunch of argumentation on Flanagan and Graham. (It's possibly my favorite scene in that entire movie, my emotions where flying everywhich way, I must have changed my mind 5 times thoughout that scene, and then twice watching the scene 3 times over) 
Arthur5005 12:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHARACTER SUMMARY FAR TOO GENERAL 

message: We need to update this for the academy award's, not that it isn't, but it's missing one award, that I, Like alway's, screwed up--71.116.65.241 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy Award's 

message: "Defeated"?  Courier new 04:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Defeated"? 

message: If this is a 2004 film then why did it get an award now in 2006? It bombed in the box office. Was it the dvd sales that kept it alive?--Tombombadil 06:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You stole those words from your second sentence right out of my mouth. M P M 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the article doesn't convey very clearly why it was entered in the 2006 and not the 2005 Oscars - perhaps some don't know when during the year the Oscars are held, so the information is more implied than actually stated. Explicitly saying that it was released internationally AFTER the 2005 Academy Awards would suffice (or shall we just make everyone look up "Academy Award" on their own to find out they're held around March?) I know many non-Americans who find this point quite confusing, especially since the film was "clearly" released (according to DVD boxes and DB references) in 2004, though personally I think of it as a 2005 film. CptJoker 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's the case, a fair amount of articles on Wikipedia need to be re-written & fixed ...and the version shown at TIFF was the same purchased & released later on. WiZZLa 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia uses the IMDB dates for films, the date of first screening, which was 2004. ProveIt (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) -- ProveIt (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 film 

message: some of the comments on here are absolutly disgusting, weather the film was trash or not is something to be discussed on bickering forums, not on an encyclopedia that looks to document. Funny how only after the Acadamy Awards is there interest in improving this article, I was helping improve it on march, 3rd and it wasn't touched for 2 days until the oscars. I added something about rick that was there originaly when I wrote it back on the third, but i edited it so that the statement would seemed more balanced:
"The point that the film might be trying to convey with his character, would be the ambiguity as to weather people of such actions are racially positive or just discriminatory for their in pursuit of the their beneficial ends."
if anyone has a problem with it please discuss it here.
on the topic of distribution, and criticisms of the quality of the movie, it was written by a Canadian, and only a canadian production company would pick it up (Lions Gate). In the end it wins best picture. Weather it 'bombed' in the boxoffice or not is up for debate, lets be honest here, the budget was 6 million :P, so in retrospect it did a hell of alot better than most movies this year interms of percentages.
Arthur5005 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Whether" Tertiary7 07:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disgusting discussion 

message: There's a line in the character summary for Peter, where it says something to the effect of "Peter is Anthony's partner in crime (black)..." This sounds kind of odd to me, and not to suggest that it was the author's intent, but it sounds like the person who wrote this is saying that to be a "partner in crime" means you're black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 
* Good call, I've fixed it. -- MisterHand 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward 

message: 'This was the first film to win the Best Picture Oscar without winning Best Director since Chicago in 2003. That year, Roman Polanski won the Best Director award for The Pianist.' Is that actually trivia?  Since 2003?  Is this an uncommon happening? The 'trivia' gives no indication that this is a circumstance of importance. Glowimperial 21:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it doesn't seem like a real earth-shattering fact to me. Rhobite 21:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I heard Haggis say after the Oscars, when asked about a 'sequel' that they weren't working on a sequel or follow up to Crash but wanted to make equally important and powerful films like it in the future. Does anyone have a quote or reference to this spin-off about Ludacris' character? Tigermave 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff? 

message: There are some characters not included in the character section that I was hoping to see there. Specifically, the "Chinaman" that got run over by the van. And his wife too. Near the end of the movie, he asks his wife to cash a check... what was that about? That part just went over my head. Also, the article doesn't mention the thing with the Asians in the van that were freed at the end. Coffee 04:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured he knew someone would find the Asians in his van, so she should take the money and run. Or something to that effect.ComaVN 09:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the beginning of the movie, you should note that the "Chinaman" is accepting something from a pretty typical (ethnic background aside) mobster in the same diner we found Officer Ryan. Clearly, the implication is that he's part of the black-market slave trade. Since he no longer has possession of the van, and subsequently can't complete the transaction, he would want to cash the check before his "employers" found out that the slaves were lost. Of course, this is quite a point of logical contention since criminals operating illegal slave trades typically don't use checks and if they did, probably wouldn't try cashing criminal money while they're restricted to a hospital bed and failed their boss. --radiokillplay 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other characters 

message: There is no harm in having the link at the top. WP:DAB is only guidelines and says that there can be a link where there's risk of confusion. If you ask someone if they saw "Crash" they'd say "The car one or the racism one" not "1996 or 2004" so there is a risk of confusion and having the disambiguation at the top would save people time. It's only one line anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.5.11 (talk • contribs) 
* My opinion: there is no point in having the DAB at the top of the page. Nobody is going to come here looking for another meaning of "Crash." Anybody looking for something called "Crash" is going to type in "Crash" and be taken straight to the DAB page. There's no risk of confusion here. However, I'll wait for input from other editors before I remove it again. -- MisterHand 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I think that there needs to be a section that looks at the movie from a soiological stand point.  This movie is being used across college campuses.  There needs to be more info about its deeper meaning rather than a list of trivia.  Trivia is okay, but let's move beyond the fan club mentality.  Someone didn't like the social analysis that I posted.  Perhaps someone could create a more detailed version.  I don't care if I do it, or if it is done by another---let's just get it done. --J. Harbin 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, but original critical analysis is prohibited on Wikipedia due to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. If there have been noteworthy books or articles analyzing the film we could mention them, but Wikipedia editors should not write their own personal commentary. I removed your analysis because it was personal commentary, not because I disliked it. Rhobite 02:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe find descriptions by notable film critics? cyclosarin 05:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociological Criticism or Analysis 

message: Hi,
Whoever did the summary of Crash did a good job.  However, I noticed that the Asian characters (besides the Persian man)are not listed in the cast of characters.  These include the "China man" (though not Chinese) who was run over in the film and the woman who was involved in the car accident at the beginning of the film.  These people had important roles and it seems as though all too often Asian charcters are rarely shown in the media, so I feel that when they are, they should get the credit they deserve.  
Thank you,
Alicia
Hi,
I would like to add that the name of the person that plays the "Chinaman," an inaccurate and harmful word, is Daniel Dae Kim.  I think this should be added to the cast.  He is not given credit on many websites.  I have generally noticed that the Latino, black, and white actresses and actors have received credit, but not Asian characters.
-Alicia-
Was just doing Alicia a favor, putting your email in a public readable place like wikipedia, you're gonna get you but spammed so fast it's not even funny. Remove the underscores and words spam free to email her. Arthur5005 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian characters 

message: I added a link to this page from the page for the 1996 flick also called Crash, and one to that page from this page, just in case, (as happened to me) someone links here from a page simply calling it "Crash", and gets confused. Master Deusoma 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert it. There's no need to link from one disambiguated page to another. Instead, fix the link that took you here. -- MisterHand 03:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just in case. 

message: The critics do not even know what they are saying. How does it make white people the most racist race? I always see white people making fun of black people 24/7 anywhere I go. The critics are probably lazy and sit home all day doing nothing. I thought this movie was about how racial tensions can ruin a city but the critics think "Movie protrayed high racialism for white people". I wasn't even thinking of colours! Cite the information please I want to double check later. The critic part OK? 
--Storkian 02:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bull**** Critics 

message: From the character descirption:
:Ryan later relieves the viewers of his racist tendencies when he saves Christine from certain death in a fiery car wreck and is seen working with a newly-assigned, Hispanic-American partner whom he seems to show no signs of prejudice towards.
Didn't he get this parnter directly after Ryan Philippe changed partners?  I watched this film the other day and I distinctly remember, after Dillon gave Philippe a handshake and the "wait till you've been on the force a little longer" speech that he turned to go to his vehicle and a hispanic officer greeted him, he then said something to the effect of, "let's roll, amigo!"  So didn't he get this partner around the start of the film, rather than the end?
--67.181.235.33 11:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Dillon's Hispanic Parnter 

message: I was looking at the external links down at the bottom, and one is to an interview with Don Cheadle. I was wondering if it was appropriate to have it down there, as it only links to one interview of only one of the actors who played in the movie, and it is more about his career than the movie. In fact, Crash is only really mentioned in a small paragraph towards the very end. Muffkin 134.121.122.101 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Cheadle's Interview? 

message: Reading through the characters I noticed that someone has categorized the characters according to race. 
Examples: 
"Rick Cabot (Brendan Fraser) is the white district attorney of Los Angeles."
"Jean Cabot (Sandra Bullock) is Rick's white wife,"
and then
"Anthony (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges) is an African-American..." -GammaRei 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Descriptions 

message: How else does the Persian shopkeeper call his "angel" ? Is it a religious name ? -- 141.30.81.156 17:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angel - <what?> 

message: There is mention of an 'Anett' in the section on Farhad. There is no reference to any 'Anett'.
Yes, having just read the article (not having seen the movie), I found this confusing. FIXME?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.104.147 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farhad 

message: :Image:Crash film 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 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 06:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Crash film poster.jpg 

message: I think it's inaccurate to say that Ria is "racist toward blacks" -- she was pissed off because the driver who rear-ended her was trying to blame her for the crash and made racist comments to the effect that all Mexicans are bad drivers. She did mock the woman's accent and short height, but neither is a racial slur against Asians per se. --PhoenixVTam (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ria 

message: I realize this is a legitimate infobox, but it is very intrusive and distracting. I question how important it is to have ratings for non-English countries on the English Wikipedia. If it could at least have a hide/show option, that would make it more tolerable. I'm interested in what others have to say about this. Ward3001 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's very long and disrupts the flow of the paragraphs. I would also question the length of the awards section - that table is massive. Surely it would be better to just include the major awards won? Am happy to make the amends if nobody disagrees. --Whoosher (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox movie certificates 

message: I'm seeing to different spellings for his name throughout this article. Are they both correct or should it be changed to one version for continuity?
Dissith (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farhad or Farhaad? 

message: I don't believe that Rick Cabot should be classified as a non-racist simply because the movie didn't say he was. I think his behavior towards his assistant, especially at the end of the movie, would imply he has racist tendencies. Thoughts?
Integrand (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Rick Cabot's Character 

message: This character is referenced in the text but no description is given for him.
PPI (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officer Tom Hansen 

message: This is a terrible article. --Savethemooses (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here expecting to find a detailed article with plot details etc. and was also left disappointed. The plot section needs to be expanded and I have added a notice to the article.03md (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class is generous 

message: I distinctly remember the whole Brokeback Mountain/Crash battle was at the Oscars of 2006, making Crash a 2005 film. Why does it say 2004, or is there something I'm missing? 24.60.239.47 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know details, but I don't think the Academy strictly follows calendar years in determining the awards for a particular year. It may be that the film was made in 2004 and, for purposes of the Academy, is considered a 2005 film. Another consideration here is that filming dates and release dates can be in different years. Ward3001 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The film was finished and shown at the 2004 Toronto Film Festival, which makes it a 2004 Film.  However, its public theatrical release in Los Angeles (which is the criterion for AMPAS eligibility) was in 2005.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.127.191 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004? 

message: Not in this movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.111.73 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Took out Lindsey Lohan 

message: Just a brief question: in what respect is the movie a German one? Did they contribute money or something like that? Nothing in the story has anything to do with Germany, so I was just wondering. 80.134.91.98 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "American / German drama film" 

message: Due to the complexity of this movie's plot, I can see the benefit in outlining it based on the actions of each character. Still, I don't think the character description for Rick Cabot does a very good job of describing his actions in the film, or his approach to race. In its current form, the article gives no mention of his hollow treatment of racial politics, or his blackmailing of Graham Waters. My edit was reverted, so I thought I would post this here for discussion. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick Cabot character description 

message: The title says this is a 2004 film, but the article says it was released in 2005. Which is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.13.160 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 or 2005? 

message: Having just watched this film and reading more about it, I feel that there's some degree of POV in the description Hansen's story: 
"He ultimately reveals his own insecurities with other races (African-Americans in particular) through his treatment of Peter Waters and how he quickly dismisses Waters' attempts to compare similarities between them"
The beginning of this especially is (I feel; POV but there you go :P) fairly unsubstantiated, and the film makes no real indication that Waters' ethnicity had anything to do with Hansen shooting him; I'm pretty sure an edgy cop would shoot any person who defies an order to NOT reach into his pocket  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crankytoad (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officer Hansen 

message: In Farhad's character description Daniel's daughter's name is given as Elizabeth. This is a misunderstanding. His daughter is called Lara, but he indeed yells "Elizabeth" (his wife).
17lswllstrt (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Nice catch. Kvsh5 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth 

message: There's no "plot" section, which is unusual for a film article. I would suggest changing the "Characters" section to "Plot and characters", and adding a few lines about the plot being made of several sub-plots. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: ok am i the only one who realizes this movie ripped off Traffic. the way all the stories intersect, it was just like traffic. to me this movie was shitty for being unoriginal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokingintherain56 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources to back this up? Cirt (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic 

message: Portraying the two african americans as car theives? This is blatant racism. And the racist cop saving the lady he molested, ha, nice try.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.224.57 (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: err, the other African-Americans are a police detective, a police lieutenant and a television director. Meanwhile the four white characters whites are: scheming politician, shallow racist, bigoted molester and a murderer cop. So just what is your point exactly?--EchetusXe 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist? 

message: Just out of curiosity: What makes this movie a "2005 movie"? IMDB has it as "2004/I" whatever that means. Are movies typically categorized by the year of completion? The year of conception/filming? The first theatrical release? 87.78.3.205 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash - a 2004 movie? 

message: There is alot of good information on this wiki page but it is far too elaborate, and even risks being redundant at some points. By no means is a blow-by-blow account of the movie necessary, and it may even impeded readers ability to understand the scope of the movie because it is so detailed and drawn out. I personally do not have the time, but it would be greatly appreciated if someone could condense this article, or even completely rewrite it. Also just wanted to note that the original writer of this article wrote that Detective Waters' wife suffered from Alzheimers, when it was in fact a heroin addiction that she suffered from, as we are shown in the movie. The misconception that it is Alzheimers comes from the scene where she asks Waters the same question twice because she is high and past the point of lucidity. I have corrected this, as well as a couple of other minor mistakes. Tigz54 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - to the best of my ability.  TRSupersour (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condense/Rewrite 

message: do anyone know her name?The 5 year old gal's awfully cute
:Her name is Lara, it's on a sign on her bedroom door!
Yes, her name is Lara, it's in the Plot Summary now, and I'm assuming it also includes link to the actress. By the way, not to really get your cases, but from now on, could you please sign your responses by using four tildes (~)? Thank you. Also, his name is Daniel. I know, I'm just really nitpicking, but I try to keep stuff on-topic and correct.
FiendKing04 22:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danial's daughter 

message: A while ago i saw this movie called Beautiful People (1999), This was after seeing Crash. And i must say they are really close to one another. Let me explain. Both movie spin around the same lets call it 'solid center'. Erm, i actually wrote a kinda hefty explanation fallowing this text but it didnt make any sens at all if you havent seen the movie Beatiful People. So my adivice is, and hint, is to see Cra... i mean Beatiful People and compare them both. This will make you see that crash is a good adaption of the brittish film Beatiful People. Crash is more mainstream, more American, but the 'solid center', and now im going to say it, barrowed from Beatiful People really does good in the movie. Some would probably say it did more good in Crash then Beatiful People. Just some thoughts and a recomendation. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159272/
I removed the profane reponse. I will be sure to check out the movie, but, my main point was to remove the pointless response from earlier.
FiendKing04 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beautiful People 

message: The plot summary needs to be re-written.  By putting down the events as they occur in the film it's completely unintelligible and far too long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.217.202 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: Why does the title say 2004 film but the article says 2005?This has since been clarified by "Crash is a 2004 (though had its theatrical release in 2005)..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3atc3 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual year of film release 

message: If the film was written and directed by a Canadian and produced by an American company (which is true), how come it is stated that it is an "American/German" film?--BloodOathX (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country of Origin 

message: http://www.crashfilm.com/loader.swf--WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website source 

message: Quote: "We later learn that Dorri felt her father was unstable and for that reason had bought only blanks when she bought him the ammunition."This is patently not the plot. Dorri clearly has no understanding of firearms and asks for the first best thing, to the barely concealed amnmusement of the store owner. IMO this is central to the plot as the subsequently avouded killing of the locksmith's child is pure serendipidy, and not due to any foresight on Dorri's part.--83.229.83.13 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:    Indeed. The daughter (Dorri, i guess) points at the shelf, implies in her tone that she is uninterested in the presumably piddling distinctions, and says "Give me that red box" or words to that effect. IMO, ID'ing it by color helps suggest a nearly random choice, largely influenced by the (perhaps unconscious) sense that red is a strong color and belongs on effective ammo.   (IMO this is intended as one more tree in a forest whose trees nearly uniformly illustrate mutual ignorance and misinterpretation of cultural differences, and resulting alienation. In fact, two trees: the first is her impatience; the second --obscured until the blank is fired-- is his likely exasperation with that impatience, which could lead him to see as futile any effort to communicate that they were blanks, to feel he'd done all that was reasonable on her behalf, and/or to no longer care about her welfare.)--Jerzy•t 13:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Ammo purchase) 

message: Let me put it this way... You didn't have to like Brokeback Mountain to hate Crash. Contrary to this article, the film received wildly mixed reviews, Roger Ebert (whose wife is black) being one of the few major reviewers to give it an enthusiastic writeup. Many reviewers disliked it for its shallow and melodramatic treatment of complex issues. And when it won Best Picture, Kenneth TynanTuran, a well-respected movie critic, remarked that, if any further proof were needed that the Academy Awards were meaningless, this was it.
Premiere magazine used to run an annual "statistical analysis" chart of movie reviews, based on 20 or so top critics that (I believe) changed little from year to year. This list had Crash about halfway down (in the 50s), while Grizzly Man and Brokeback Mountain came in at #1 and #2 respectively. The Rotten Tomatoes evaluations are of questionable value, because they include the opinions of reviewers who would not normally be considered in the top ranks.
This article is not POV-neutral, because it fails to thoroughlythoroughly discuss the near-firestorm debate aroused by Crash's Best-Picture nomination and win. At the least, it needs more quotes from both sides. 
--WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:41 & :46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
: I was perplexed by this analysis of the movie in the critical reception section:
:: "laying bare the racialised fantasy of the American dream and Hollywood narrative aesthetics"
: Huh? This move IS one big racialized fantasy.  Every scene was about the characters racial or ethnic identity, tensions towards others, or grievences.  It was very arduous to watch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.45.120.114 (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the point. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.45.140 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  badly inadequate discussion of controversy 

message: so this seems irrelevant? it says it is going to be removed, I just want to make sure it does or it has better explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.255.21 (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In campo armato! what is this?