Jump to content

Talk:Crash (2004 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Criticism

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)
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)

the thing that got me about this movie is that it didnt even try to teach a lesson. it just degraded every single aspect of humanity. the basic thing it seems to try to tell is "white people are rich assholes, and everyone else are poor assholes". the movie also had very contradictory and unrealistic parts. in an early scene, two black men are like wondering about why everyone is scared of them, and then they go jack a car. this rich woman talks down to her italian maid (the only italian in the story. of course she is extremely submissive and wimpy) and later calls her friend about how angry she seems to be getting. she hangs up, then randomly slips and falls down the stairs and passes out. WTF? it has no purpose at all. the bottom line is the story had no moral or lesson. it didnt even have a message or purpose. it just degraded every aspect of humanity and said that all humans are bad and we seem to be leading only to our own destruction on this earth. i think that is absurd and flase. this movie absolutely sucked. i would pay NOT to see it.

I think there should be a criticism section for every movie, along with a praise section. But shouldn't the "Criticism" and "Academy Award Criticism" sections be merged? --KittyCollier 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is a love-it-or-hate-it movie and that many people dislike this movie. But this section on criticism is far too long and repetitive. How many times do you need to have this or that critic saying "worst episode ever?" This movie scored 75% at rottentomatoes.com so why is Ebert the only critic cited that gives a positive review? Some balance please. And including Nikki Finke saying, "Turns out Hollywood is as homophobic as Red State country" is wrong; if Hollywood were truly homophobic, then Brokeback Mountain would not have had so many nominations in the first place. [8]74.99.213.103 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about the criticism section being too long. If there were, in fact, an appropriate place to outline the so-called Crash-backlash, then I think two or three paragraphs (or fewer) in the 78th Academy Awards article would suffice. (As an aside, the bakclash, to me, is absurd because I, for one, loved the movie. But that's really out of the question - the current length of the criticism section destroys the section's neutrality and gives readers the impression that we're using Wikipedia articles merely as forums where we can express our own perceptions of things.) S@lo 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"And including Nikki Finke saying, "Turns out Hollywood is as homophobic as Red State country" is wrong; if Hollywood were truly homophobic, then Brokeback Mountain would not have had so many nominations in the first place." If Hollywood's values alligned more closely with "red states" than Brokeback Mountain would have never been made. This movie was the most flagrant racist attack on White People since Do the Right Thing. Why aren't more people concerned about this? Pygmypony 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Please read discussions before editing? Towsonu2003 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

tHIS ARTICLE IS TERRIBLY WRITTEN, AND FACTUALLY ERRONEUOS. mE NO SPELL GUD

If you think something is wrong in the article, you can change it. No need to complain. --CodeGeneratR 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)

This is a very important movie for people to see.

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

Does anyone not want to touch the social implications as a result of this movie? -- 141.161.124.110 09:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Per content, most of this article is poorly written and full of spelling, grammatical, and factual errors. I am going to place a cleanup tag on the article until it is fixed. --Offkilter 07:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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)


I didn't see the movie, but this article IS STILL bad. The description of "Rick" violates NPOV, and the description of "Anthony" is simply incoherent. The plot summary needs to be expanded. Where is it set? Who are the main characters? Climax, resolution? There were no SPOILERS. That's as far as I got. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.47.219.140 (talk • contribs)

This article reads like a movie review rather than a factual description of the film; most of it needs to be rewritten with NPOV. 81.255.105.5 12:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did the characters section go?? I understand if there was debate over whether the character summaries were written from a NPOV but removing them entirely makes the article extremely less useful. You could least match characters to their actors if not write objective summaries. 129.2.194.197 01:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

IMDB lists this as a 2004 release, as well as the box cover.--CodeGeneratR 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

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)

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

Foundas V.S. Ebert Debate

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)

Racism and the movie

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)

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)

Although you agree, somehow your changes delete all references to racism. The movie is about racism. not including references to racism in the US as well as not examining the movie in terms of how it performs in its attempts to criticize it is POV / NPOV... My additions are not anti-American, what the movie is all about is racism in the US... Towsonu2003 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

The paragraphs are neutral, unfortunately. For example, the Middle Eastern father is portrayed as an uncontrollable angry animal, within the current Middle Eastern stereotype. The Middle Eastern women are invisible (a paragraph I didn't add). Almost all of the Asians in the movie are arrogant and mad. Almost all blacks in the movie are violent. These are stereotypes, not genuine characters. This is very unfortunate for the movie. But oh I give up... You're just scared to call what you see in a movie, that's all. I don't have time for a "yours is POV" / "No, yours is POV" / "No, yours is POV" flamewar. I was trying to fix a poorly written article, but now I see why it is poorly written, despite the above invitation of CodeGeneratR to fix the article... Towsonu2003 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Relativism... And, I truly believe that the movie is very good, and it should be watched. It is a very modern interpretation of what's going on in the US, while it has some shortcomings. From your misunderstanding above, it seems that I was indeed able to separate my beliefs (that the movie is very good) from what I write (that the movie uses stereotypes frequently and fails to accomplish its goals). It is unfortunate that you try to scare away people because their contributions are not in accord with your POV. May be we should just delete CodeGeneratR's invite. Towsonu2003 06:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

On the topic of characters depicting seteotypes, wasn't that the whole point of it trying to bring to light the fact that you have to 'break' stereotype. There's our wonderful rapper friend "ludacris" clearly having an amazingly intelligent conversation with his carjacker friend about how society is prejudace, the music proliferates stereotype, and I think it stood clear to everyone that there's no way any real carjacker would have a conversation about it, but I think it needed to be done to bring to light that even the carjackers understand the prejudace and stereotypes that society creates, but it CLEARLY sent the message that something has to be done to BREAK stereotype. I think it would be naive to think that the writer didn't 'realize' that the situation was hypocritical. Arthur5005 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Flanagan's Importance

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)

I think you missed the point of Flanagan's character. I think he was only put in there as the long arm of the district attorney. In more than one scene, Brendan Fraser's character is asking for someone to find Flanagan. Also, Flanagan himself says it in the film when he meets up with Cheadle. That's actually Fraser's character at work making the bribe, not Flanagan--he's the puppet.70.123.201.210 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)FavoriteNewMovie

CHARACTER SUMMARY FAR TOO GENERAL

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)

Academy Award's

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)

"Defeated"?

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

2004 film

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)

It didn't get a wide release in theaters until May of 2005. The article itself explains why it got an award in 2006 and not 2005. Tigermave 07:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You stole those words from your second sentence right out of my mouth. M P M 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

Yes to what Tigermave wrote. The film didn't bomb, it was made for a mere 6.5 million dollars and made more than 9 million opening weekend. It is all written in the article. M P M 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should use the criteria that the Academy uses when deciding the year of a film: the year of it's first theatrical release in its home country. For Crash, that year was 2005. The 2004 showing was at the Toronto Film Festival, and I don't even know if that was the same cut as the theatrical version. -- MisterHand 14:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

I just moved it. Spongesquid 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Product Placement Ads

added this section:

There are at least two product placement ads in the film, one for the Lincoln Navigator SUV, and another for the Discovery Channel cable TV channel.
Do you have a source to back that up? Are you sure that Lincoln and Discovery paid for these placements? Rhobite 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even notice them while I was watching the movie. Personally I doubt they were paid for... Tigermave 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
wow, how naive can we be? [1] the products names are repeated often enough and are so central to their respective scenes it looks pretty obvious. NO products are so explicitly mentioned in films these days without their being a commercial arrangement.
We don't draw our own conclusions in articles. And Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. If you have a source saying that these companies paid for the product placement, please post it. Rhobite 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
yeah, right. who's 'we'? By definition, if a brand is explicitly mentioned favorably multiple times in a film, someone is paying for that, and it is product placement. By definition, if you think a brand like Discovery Channel had no knowledge of Crash's using their brand, you are a moron, sorry.
Not all instances of brands in movies and TV shows represent paid product placements. HBO never accepts paid placements, for example. Without a citation, there's no way of knowing whether Discovery or Lincoln paid to have their brands in Crash, or if the producers simply thought they would fit well. And once again, I remind you of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Rhobite 21:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

disgusting discussion

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)

"Whether" Tertiary7 07:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Awkward

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)

Trivia

'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)

Yeah, it doesn't seem like a real earth-shattering fact to me. Rhobite 21:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff?

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)

Other characters

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)

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)
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)

Disambiguation

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)

Sociological Criticism or Analysis

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)

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)
Maybe find descriptions by notable film critics? cyclosarin 05:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Asian characters

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)

Just in case.

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)

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)

Does anyone else think that there should be something added about ths significance of the title to the film? There was some good quotes at the beginning and the end kind of links it all together. I've only seen the movie once but I came here to read a little more on that and there wasn't anything. --Liz 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Did Dorri know about the bullets?

Just a little thing I noticed while browsing the page. I think she knew they were blanks from the getgo, that she knew what her dad would do with the gun. I just wanted to get a consensus before any edit.

She didn't necesarily know what her father would do, but she did know she was buying blanks.


I disagree. She didn't know they were blanks. She was simply trying to get out of the store and away from the racist store owner, so she just said "give me the ones in the red box". She didn't realize they were blanks until after she found her father in the store holding the gun (i.e., when he told her he'd shot at Lara, and that an angel had interved). She obviously didn't buy the "angel" explanation, so she checked the bullets and discovered that they were blanks.
Actually, you might remember that the owner asked her if she knew what type of bullets they were & she says "Yes" very knowingly, which probably means she DID know they were blanks. She's obv quite intelligent & was probably buying them to teach her father a lesson. Tommyt 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. She didn't want her father to buy the gun at all, and would have preferred to cancel the purchase. The store owner reeled off a list of brands/types of bullets. She didn't know which to choose and just wanted to get out of the store, but a box of bullets was part of the deal, so she looked at the shelf behind him and picked the red boxes simply because they stood out. From the owner's reaction, I figured they were the wrong caliber or something, but obviously he wasn't even trying to be helpful.
—wwoods 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I gotta counter: She didn't pick them simply because they stood out, that would be a bit too simplistic for the story & she's much smarter than that! She's also much more even-tempered than her father & obviously better able to handle the interaction w/the store owner, IE, she's definitely NOT afraid of the guy. Also, if you freeze-frame at the moment he gives her the box, it says BLANKS in big letters on the end. Probably not too hard to read from a distance of about 4' while they were on the shelf. And, the owner's comment "Do you know what type those are?" is a pretty strong indication. Now, if you want director's evidence, I finished listening to Haggis' DVD commentary last night & he said that the look that Dorri gives right before the closeup of the box in the drawer suggests that she knew. Of course, even a dir's comment is open to interpretation... Tommyt 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This back-and-forth is starting to get pretty ridiculous, so it seems clear to me that things aren't clear. I personally saw the film thrice in the theater and once on DVD, and every time I believed she bought the blanks on accident. I think her knowing "Yes" was simply her calling the gun store owner's bluff, not an absolute indication that she knew she was buying blanks. Both that scene and the scene in the store when she takes a second look at the box of BLANKS in the drawer are ambiguous, opinions can (and clearly do) go either way. That being said, it would probably be better if the article simply did not make any statement as to whether Dorri knew the bullets were blanks. --Cromas 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Dorri, is it known for sure that she's a doctor? She could be a nurse or an orderly. Don't mean to sound sexist, but lots of people work in hospitals other than doctors.

I erased my earlier comment, I hadn't read yours very carefully, sorry 'bout that! I think she's a doctor but now I'm compelled to watch the film again for evidence. Tommyt 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bull**** Critics

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)

Matt Dillon's Hispanic Parnter

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)

Don Cheadle's Interview?

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)

Racial Descriptions

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)

whats the meaning of crash in this film?

Angel - <what?>

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

Farhad

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crash film poster.jpg

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)

Ria

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)


Infobox movie certificates

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)

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)

Farhad or Farhaad?

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)

Description of Rick Cabot's Character

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)

Officer Tom Hansen

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

B-class is generous

This is a terrible article. --Savethemooses (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

2004?

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)

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)
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)

Took out Lindsey Lohan

Not in this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.111.73 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"American / German drama film"

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)

I concur this film has absolutely nothing to do with germany... the director is Canadian-American. Unless someone puts up legitimate proof that this is tied to Germany in anyway I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.235.128 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Cabot character description

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)

2004 or 2005?

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)

Officer Hansen

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)

Elizabeth

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)

88.97.20.12 (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Nice catch. Kvsh5 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot

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)

Traffic

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)

Sources to back this up? Cirt (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Traffic was NOT the first movie, nor screenplay, nor BOOK to be told in vignettes, as this movie was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.40.75 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Racist?

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)

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)

Crash - a 2004 movie?

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)

Condense/Rewrite

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)

Done - to the best of my ability. TRSupersour (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Danial's daughter

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)

Beautiful People

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)

Plot summary

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)


I tried to improve the plot summary. It's probably still too long but it was what I could do at this point. There was some obvious vandalism and it looked like someone did a search and replace for any instance of "his" with "his or her" which produced a completely absurd result. The cast summary also restated a lot of the events of the movie so I made some serious cuts there. Again, I think the plot summary is improved but other input is welcome. Ajcomeau (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ajcomeau. I've gone through and tried to summarize it as much as possible without taking out too much detail, however, one must realize this is a very detailed movie with many plots and sub-plots running throughout, so there is only so much you can do. Also, I've gone through and again remove the "his or her" phrases appearing throughout. Maybe it's time this is locked to prevent future abuse? FiendKing04 22:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


"Dorri comes to see Farhad, who explains what happened." well, what happended? the whole part where farhad tries to shoot daniel is missing. it's an important part of the plot so i guess it should be there. i won't write it cause english is not my native language and i don't feel able to. 78.42.128.207 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

To the user at 86.180.85.211 who reverted the edits on 5/20/10: 1.) The fact that you don't agree with someone else's edits doesn't make them vandalism. I and other users worked to improve this article. If you're going to make this charge, at least sign your edits. 2.) HMO does not mean "Her Majesty's Officer" in America or in this movie. It means "Health Maintenance Organization". Please check your facts.

Whilst I understand your point of view, I do think it suffers from the parochial approach of much of Wikipedia. The world is not an adjunct to the US of A. It is much bigger. Most of it has no idea what American abbreviations and colloquialisms mean. 'Please check your facts' is disingenuous. If Wikipedia intends to be an international, rather than a US-centric, web site its editors owe it to themselves to replace American jargon and slang with English (in the English section, of course) and not use what Microsoft (I think) named as 'US English' (itself an oxmoron).

On the other hand, if Wikipedia is a US of A publication, with all that implies, then by all means pepper it with words, phrases and abbreviations that have no meaning outside the US of A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.166.3 (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors owe it to themselves to accurately represent what they are writing about. This was a movie made in the U.S. with a U.S. setting and U.S. characters. In the context of this movie and its story, HMO means 'Health Maintenance Organization'. Translating it as 'Her Majesty's Officer' as was done does not make the site accessible to an international audience - it makes the article less accurate and shows the same parochial view that you accuse Wikipedia of, just with a different accent. Ajcomeau (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Editors owe it to their publication to present the correct information to *their audience*. That you and the 'editor' (*) view the audience of Wikipedia as American is sufficient to explain your comments.
(*) The approach indicates a subjective columnist, rather than an editor in the correct sense of the word. This juxtaposition is, arguably, Wikipedia's greatest weakness and vagueness of purpose.
"shows the same parochial view that you accuse Wikipedia of"
(1) You do not appear to appreciate irony. You are presumably American (the US of A part).
(2) "shows the same parochial view of which you accuse Wikipedia" would be the grammatically correct version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.166.3 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think FiendKing04 was right in the last section. Maybe this article does need to be locked. Ajcomeau (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actual year of film release

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)

Country of Origin

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)

Website source

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

(Ammo purchase)

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)

   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)

Sloppy writing and linking

The plot section needs many more explanatory links, as well as rewrites, to make the text less jargon-filled.

We can't assume that all readers are aware what abbreviations, words and expressions such as "HMO", "Navigator", "pat-down", "cloak", "SUV", "van", "LAPD officer", "to exit", "ticket", "locksmith", " work order", "insurance adjuster", "insurance representative", "bladder infection", "prostate cancer", "health plan", "the city", "minority owned businesses", "affirmative action", "junkie", "studio", producer", "re-shoot the scene", "responds to the accident", "responded to the call", "talks him down", "is overcome", "off-duty", "country music", "hockey", "dashboard statuette", "Saint Christopher", "pulls over", "The narrative", "blanks", "bonfire", "cash a check", "chop shop", "fender-bender" mean in this context.
Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you insane? "In this context"? What the hell are you rambling about? "Prostate cancer" and about 95% of every other word or phrase in your paragraph is not "jargon" and there are no other synonyms for them. Please, if you have alternative terms or synonyms to use that nobody else is aware of for the 39 words and terms that you consider "hard to understand", then feel free to enlighten us as to what they are.
99.239.176.33 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  While i'm not inclined to lecture this intermittent IP-editor on CIV, please do note what will mislead readers more accustomed to careful discussion: the IP's irresponsible juxtaposition, with a preceding pair of direct quotes, of
terms that you consider "hard to understand"
involving what must be something like scare quotes (even tho in the IP's context the natural interpretation falsely implies that TB wrote the three words between quotes). AFAICan see, the only accurate way of construing those seven words from the IP's hand is
terms that [the IP] would describe as "hard to understand" (rather than as "jargon"), if [they] agreed with [TB's] judgment
accompanied by an effort by the IP to be clear about disagreeing with TB's judgment -- or rather, with wording that they presume states TB's judgment better than TB's wording does. (IMO that presumption is another CIV vio, but) my concern, to repeat, is the low likelihood of readers correctly construing the IP's wording, and the high likelihood of their misconstruing the facts as a result.)
--Jerzy•t 13:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole "plot" section needs to be reduced to an intelligent synopsis. Right now it might as well be the entire screenplay. Huw Powell (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

badly inadequate discussion of controversy

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)
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)

In campo armato! what is this?

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_(2004_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1193575112"