Jump to content

Talk:Donnie Darko/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Genre

Is this really a horror film? I notice it was changed [1] from drama/psychological thriller/sci yesterday. 163.1.173.76 (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is regarded by ignorant people as a horror film (mainly after watching the trailer), but it really is a science fiction psycological thriller. Farslayer (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


SETH ROGEN IS UNCREDITED IN THE FILM. SHOULD THIS NOT BE MENTIONED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.207.11 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we prove it was him, if he wasn't credited? It looked like him, but I don't know for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that it is Seth Rogen - imdb also confirms this. 194.72.35.70 (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Andy - Sheffield, England

It's not really a science fiction film. Teen Drama is more like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.68.231 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Teen drama? What film were you watching? Cls14 (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I know many of you think science fiction and drama are the only genres in the film, but there is really the psychological thriller genre to it. For example, Frank the Bunny appeared as Donnie Darko's mental projection; therefore, Frank appears in Donnie's mind as a hallucination, but not before he can actually see Frank in person. Batman194 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what we think, only what's verifiable by reliable sources. In my worthless personal opinion, a "psychological thriller" should have a femme fatale, a crooked cop, a dirty lawyer and/or a serial killer. This film gets a bit into psychologies, but not in a "thrilling" way. Basic Instinct or Taking Lives it ain't. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The femme fatale, serial killer, dirty lawyer, or crooked cop happen to only occurred in thriller films, not psychological thriller films. The only psychological thriller part is true to your opinion InedibleHulk is Taking Lives. You may have been confused on the way you described the film genres. Batman194 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
That's one of the main reasons we have a no original research policy. There's a lot of room for interpretation in sticking genres to art, and much overlap. There have been many heated and futile talk page arguments on Wikipedia (especially when calling any band "emo"). Ater all the rabble, whichever genres are reliably sourced always win out. Let's skip to that part, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation section

I really can't get behind the Interpretation section of this article. For one thing, it makes up well over a quarter of the total prose, a clear case of undue weight. Secondly, it relies on just two sources, of which only one is third-party. Treating Dan Kois's views on the film as some kind of definitive explanation is wrong when so many other sources describe the plot as "ambiguous". I'm also concerned that the article violates WP:INUNIVERSE – nowhere in the original plot of the movie is there any mention of "tangential vortices", "artifacts", "manipulated living" or "living receivers", and including such detailed descriptions of these terms within the article is misleading and confusing for the reader. I also think that devoting an entire paragraph of the plot summary to fictional events that don't even occur within the movie violates WP:INUNIVERSE too. At the moment, a large proportion of the article reads like someone's personal reflection on the film, which obviously Wikipedia is not.

Personally, I'd recommend trimming down or completely rewriting the Interpretation section to include citations from more than one source, removing the "Events occurring outside of the film" section entirely, and putting far, far less emphasis on the supposed contents of the fictional book The Philosophy of Time Travel. I think this article needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish all participating editors the very best of luck in improving it. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a somewhat large section, but no larger than it needs to be. This plot is more complicated than most, and I think the section adequately explains without going overboard. If you can trim words without removing information, I'm all for conciseness. I'd be against removing the terms you claim are confusing and misleading. These are not in the original version of the film, but (as is clearly stated), they are in the Director's Cut and website, as are the descriptions of them. These are not "supposed contents" of the fictional book, but sourced and readable contents. The analysis of how they fit into the plot is done by a reliable secondary source, but more wouldn't hurt, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I've discovered a working archive of the website and have filled in some of the blanks for you regarding events outside the film. These are not in the film, but this is an official site in the same "universe" the film is, and should be viewed as a primary source in about the same light. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
You've kind of highlighted my problem with the Interpretation section – it relies far too heavily on a primary source. What the official website says is largely irrelevant to the plot summary, as this article isn't about the website at all – it's about the film, and should really only reflect that content. The movie itself makes absolutely no reference to "tangential vortices", "artifacts", "manipulated living" or "living receivers", so putting such a large emphasis on them in this article misleads the reader and violates WP:UNDUE. And the fact that you're describing the website as being "in the same 'universe'" as the film is a red flag to me that the article is violating WP:INUNIVERSE.
The pages of the book actually are seen throughout the Director's Cut, overlay-style. Gotta be quick (or have a pause button) to read them, but they're in it. And the film references the book those pages are in a lot. Relying on a primary for the book is the same as relying on a primary for the plot. And the book and film are part of the same plot, not two versions of it.
I'm afraid that I've got to disagree that the Interpretation section is "no larger than it needs to be" – my whole point is that, for a section that cites only one third party source, it's far, far longer than it needs to be, and shouldn't be taking up over a quarter of the article's text. To be honest, having looked over this talk page a bit more, I am somewhat surprised that the section exists at all. It was less than five months ago that the RfC was closed with "a clear consensus against including a section about the fictional book 'The Philosophy of Time Travel'" – the current Interpretation section duplicates a lot of that content. Why was it brought back? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that argument is where the Interpretation section came from. The problem was with incorporating this stuff into the Plot section. It was suggested it would be more appropriate in a separate section. And now it is. What specifically would you trim? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"the book and film are part of the same plot" – the book and film are completely different, and we need to make sure that we're not confusing them: Donnie Darko is a real-world film that was released at our cinemas and can be bought on DVD; The Philosophy of Time Travel is a fictional book that only exists within the fictional Donnie Darko universe. It doesn't even play that big a role in the plot of the original film: Monitoff gives Donnie a copy, he reads it, he writes a letter to Roberta Sparrow about it, and, err, that's about it really. Anything else mentioned about this fictional book in the Director's Cut or on the official website is entirely irrelevant to the plot.
The book is his reason for going to see Sparrow. The letter is the reason she was on the road. If it weren't for those, Gretchen and Frank wouldn't die, and if Frank doesn't die, nobody gets Donnie out of bed. No waking, no movie. No dead Gretchen, no saving the world. That is about it, really. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Typically, director's cuts or special editions of films are either detailed in a separate section in the article (e.g. Alien or Lord of the Rings) or in an entirely different article altogether (e.g. Superman II or Blade Runner) – when a director's cut or special edition is released, we don't retroactively alter the plot summary of the original film. I don't think this article's section on the director's cut needs to detail anymore than, say, when the cut was released, how wide the release was, what the critical and commercial reactions were, and what changes were made. I don't think we'd need to go into anymore detail than saying, for example, "Pages of The Philosophy of Time Travel are overlayed over certain sections of the film". The very fact that you need to pause the film just to read these pages suggests to me that they don't definitely require such a detailed emphasis in this article, and that detailing their specific contents violates WP:IINFO.
Well, we've got a reliable secondary source saying the book's info is crucial to understanding the film. And we've got you saying it's not important. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Having have a quick read of both the RfC and the discussion here, it would seem that the issue wasn't whether the contents of TPoTT should be included in the plot summary, it was whether they should be included at all. The initial question was "Should this article include a section ... relaying the content of the fictional book 'The Philosophy of Time Travel'?", and the eventual outcome was "a clear consensus against including a section about the fictional book 'The Philosophy of Time Travel'" – nothing about the plot summary at all. Unless considerably more reliable, third party sources can be found, I think both the "Interpretation" and "Events occurring outside of the film" sections need to go. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
If you were there at the time, it would be more obvious that "section" meant "subsection of the plot section". What would qualify as a "considerably more reliable" source? An academic paper? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean that the sources need to be considerably more reliable, just that there need to be considerably more of them. As I've already said, we have one reliable third party source saying the book's info is crucial to understanding the film, and we have many other sources that describe the plot as "ambiguous". To be honest, I really can't understand why those sections are there – there was clear consensus at the RfC that that information should be removed, so it's a little sly to readd it all again under a new section header three weeks later. Anyway, I don't want to say anymore on this matter, otherwise I'll just be repeating myself. In summary, the "Interpretation" and "Events occurring outside of the film" sections clearly violate WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:UNDUE and WP:IINFO – they should be removed. Thanks for the discussion. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Have a good day. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at what there is now, one needs to remember that we are an enyclopedia, not a Cliffs notes or a work of analysis. If the movie had several serious sources to analyze the work and its intepretations that might justify these sections but at the present time the sections are lacking sources. It does not hurt WP to leave questions unanswered in terms of a tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Would this count as "serious"? Or this? This one? And could you rephrase your last sentence? I don't understand it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think any of them could be used as references in this article, I'm afraid. Having briefly looked over all three, none of them seems to contain the level of fact-checking and editorial oversight that we require from our sources on Wikipedia. That second one, for example, is run by some unemployed engineer. The first one is run by just one guy called Dan Smith. The final one is a website about two N64 games, so I don't see how it can be used as a reliable source in an article about something completely different. All three look more like fansites than "serious" sources. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, we are dealing with a movie. These generally aren't going to be covered by highly serious sources. There's not much fact-checking involved in watching a movie and analyzing it, whether you're an unemployed engineer or named Dan Smith. Websites are often divided into sections. I linked the relevant section, not the bit about Goldeneye. You could just as easily say there's nothing about Donnie Darko or apples on Wikipedia, just the last voyage of the Karluk and something about locusts in Madagascar. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not necessary a question if the sources are reliable, but the number there are. People have analyzed things like Shakespeare's plays, books like 1982, works like 2001 A Space Odyssey countless times. That same level of detail just doesn't exist for DD. It's a cult film, there's plenty of fan interpretations, but the amount of interpretation and analysis out there from even remotely reliable sources is just not a lot. It is undue to include this relative to the rest of the sourced information about the article, at least to the degree given. It can be said that the work is subject to interpretation, but WP is not the place to dissect it. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
But we're not dissecting it on Wikipedia. We're relaying the results of a dissection done by an independent, professional critic. And relaying the bits of the movie viewers tend to overlook. The POTT chapters are small, in terms of screentime, but huge, in terms of plot. When Frank says, "Pay close attention, you could miss something", he's not kidding. We know there are an abundance of reviews (basically all of them, before the Director's Cut) that say viewers will likely be as confused as they were. As an encylopedia, it's our job to educate. As far as knowledge in general goes, this is minor stuff, but as knowledge about this movie, it's clearly filling a significant gap. It's a bit long, but is in a clearly distinct section that nobody who isn't interested is forced to read. But if it can be trimmed down, I'd like to hear (or see) some suggestions. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
One critic, not dozens. Again, if dissection of the work was all over the place, there won't be a question of adding it. But adding one person's interpretation is not the same, and gives undue weight to that importance. That's the problem, not so much what that reliable source is but the fact its only a single one. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There are the other three I showed here today. Not really seeing the reliability problem with them yet. And a shitload of YouTube videos, forums, etc (which I'm not suggesting adding as sources). There are various theories out there, but when you take away the ones that are contradicted by the plot and POTT, there's only one "true" theory, and it's the one we have here. Some small details differ, but the basic Tangent Universe story is the same and accepted by the majority of authors. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether we're writing about movies, brigatines or locusts, all content in the main Wikipedia namespace needs to be verified by "highly serious sources", and this is the "reliability problem" you've mentioned – none of the three websites that you've listed can really be viewed as reliable. From the looks of things, they are all either self-published fansites, not valid, or both. They do not have the editorial oversight or level of fact-checking that we require, so they cannot be used to cite material either in this article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. And, as Masem has said, one source alone is not enough to justify such a huge section in this article, no matter what your or my interpretations of this film are. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
When you put "highly serious sources" in quotes, it makes me think you've read that somewhere. If so, could you share? We've a fact in the lead right now, sourced to The Onion. What purpose would fact-checking or editorial oversight serve in analyzing a film, and how does a lack of it hurt? We're dealing with interpretation here, nothing objectively true or false. Independence from the subject is the key thing.
As for the validity thing, like I've said, this isn't a fringe view. As far as "scholarship" on this film goes, the view here is the mainstream one. It'd be different if it said Donnie dreamed the whole thing, is stuck in a time loop or the movie isn't supposed to make sense. We don't really have any "established scholarship" saying one thing or another, but in the context of what we do have, this theory is commonly accepted.
I agree with you and Masem's point about the "one source" thing. Your views on their reliability are the only thing stopping me from adding the others. If you've considered what I've said above about that, and agree, we can resolve all these problems right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you feel better if we also included a bit noting that other sources describe the plot as ambiguous? Looking over the sources you listed for this, another common thread among them is the "hard to understand" part. All the more reason to explain here, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation section (again)

Re: this revert.

I'm sorry InedibleHulk, but I fear that you may be the one misunderstanding the RfC here: having read it pretty thoroughly, the discussion was on whether this article should include a section relaying the content of the fictional book "The Philosophy of Time Travel", and the outcome was that there is a clear consensus against including a section about the fictional book "The Philosophy of Time Travel".

Whether this material should be in the plot section or not was never the issue – the issue was whether it should be in the article at all. And the consensus was that it should not. It really could not be anymore clear, and, from what I can tell, everybody since then has agreed with it. Nobody said that it would be better suited in its own Interpretation section – perhaps it would be better suited in another wiki. Although I don't agree with the IP's attitude, I do agree that including this section clearly goes against the community consensus, so I have reverted your edit. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OldJacobite opposed per WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan "would not be against the inclusion of such details if they could be sourced to secondary sources, since it would then come under thematic analysis" and "If sources have reported on the time travel elements of the film, then it can be covered in the form of thematic analysis or an interpretation". Masem says "There's no question the book's important and its explanation of time travel critical to understanding the story, but the section being added went far too much detail that we don't need here". ("here", in context, seems to mean the plot section.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I admit, I could have been more specific with how I framed my question, but at the time, it was clear what I meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That seems a little sly to me. You asked a very clear question at the start of the RfC, and you got a very clear response: consensus is against having a section on the PoTT. Now you're saying that your question actually meant something completely different and that everyone who said they were against having a section on the PoTT were really against having it as a subsection of the plot summary, and that in fact they had no problem with there being an entire section devoted to the fictional book (despite the conclusion reached by the closing admin). Personally, I took Masem's "here" to mean "anywhere in the article" or "on Wikipedia", but I guess that's for him/her to clarify. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Here" as in "Wikipedia" (eg too much detail as we're a tertiary source). --MASEM (t) 13:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
This article needs an "Analysis" section, and I do not think we are currently using the right sources to determine how much of The Philosophy of Time Travel to describe to put coverage into context. There are numerous books with chapters focusing on Donnie Darko, and these need to be assessed to see how much non-film materials (like Time Travel) are used in them. Here are books covering Donnie Darko: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (this one is a full book), and 6. There are even more results via Google Scholar as seen here. This is the kind of coverage we need, like what exists at Featured Articles American Beauty or Tender Mercies. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see an Analysis section in this article – as you've demonstrated, there are probably dozens of critics who discuss the themes in this movie, and it would be good for Wikipedia to present them. I've seen Donnie Darko be described as a high school movie, science fiction, black comedy, a period piece, a teen film, an ensemble drama, and a character study. My problem with the Interpretation section is that it presents just one interpretation, and comprises well over a quarter of the article's entire prose, a clear case of undue weight. It relies on just one secondary souce, and presents fictional events as if they actually occurred, violating WP:INUNIVERSE. All in all, it currently reads like someone's personal reflection on the film, which Wikipedia is not. And I believe that, for some or all of these reasons, the consensus was reached in September that this article should not include a section on the fictional book "The Philosophy of Time Travel". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There was only one, because there is only one interpretation that both fits the POTT and is generally accepted. It seems to be just as long as it needs to be to sufficiently explain, not undue. If you'd like to try trimming it without removing info, that's fine. The "Events occuring outside of the film" is not INUNIVERSE, it says the website adds details about the plot and characters of the film (no website, plot, film or characters in that universe). And there is only one secondary source because the others I offered apparently don't meet your stringent standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Who says that there is only one interpretation? "Generally accepted" by whom? I can find several sources that state that the film has multiple interpretations. Richard Kelly himself said in a 2003 interview with The New York Post that "there are multiple interpretations of the story line". Also, they're not my standards – they're the standards laid down by Wikipedia's content guidelines. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Some of those are written before the Director's Cut explained things. Others complain that the POTT chapters in the Director's Cut explained too much and robbed the film of its mystery. I don't see any other interpretations, just mentions that they exist(ed). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
A Thousand Doors, I think he just means that this is just one interpretation that references the non-film materials. InedibleHulk, we have to apply WP:NPOV here. If the majority of the interpretations do not include POTT in assessing the film, that makes this particular interpretation relatively marginal. It seems most appropriate to incorporate interpretations of this topic, then determine if we need to cover any part of the film in more detail, or POTT itself, to provide context for the interpretations. This means retrieving these books and articles, though. Unless one wants to give this article a good overhaul, we can't have a section that uses just one interpretation. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The three "main" Internet theories I see are Donnie is hallucinating (based on the fact that he's seeing a shrink), Donnie is dreaming (because he wakes up at the beginning) and Donnie is in a Tangent Universe (based on the POTT, which spells it out pretty explicitly). Only one of those carries any real weight, and a Google search can show how generally it is accepted. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring forums and wikis and blogs, how many reliable secondary sources discuss the interpretation of the movie? My read of this conversation says "one". For all purposes, having any more than a sentence or two would be UNDUE weight on one source. But I may be reading this conversation wrong. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, we need to reference reliable sources. We cannot just reference the general theories found on the Internet. I do not think depending on Google search results is the correct way to determine if a theory is authoritative. We need to apply RS criteria, and there are plenty of print sources to look at that can be considered reliable because they have gone through editorial oversight, unlike Internet discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's where we seem to be stuck. I gave three more sources above (not discussions), and apparently they're no good because they aren't fact-checked or peer-reviewed. I can understand holding sources for true/false facts to that standard, but how is anyone supposed to fact-check a film analysis any further than we can? The only verifiable thing is the film. Anyone who's seen it can tell these authors aren't bullshitting about that.
And I had three mainstream sources in the article saying the POTT stuff is helpful/important/crucial to understanding the film. Why we're intentionally leaving readers in the dark is beyond me. I understand the section is large, but it's not something we can explain in a paragraph or two. And it's not something anyone has to read or can't scroll/click past. If they're only interested in the surface plot, the sections are clearly divided. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not our job as a tertiary source to explain every detail there is to understand a film. Adding that there are interpretations that revolve around the film and the DOTT book and a highlight of these, yes. Adding every iota of interpretation that is there, no, that's not appropriate. That's why as best as I can tell, we've got enough to explain in one paragraph to say that there are various interpretations of the film in how they tie into the DOTT book; but we need to leave it high level. This is based on only what sources have been pointed out. If it was the case that dozens of reliable published discussions on interpretation were out there, a dedicated section would start to make sense. It's basically arguments on the undue balance in the work. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's say you're right. How could we shrink the POTT stuff down to a paragraph, while still retaining useful information? And what of all the reliable, mainstream, peer-reviewed, fact-checked DVD reviews that say this information is key to understanding the film? Is it our job to decide instead it isn't, and inquiring minds can go fuck themselves? If so, I quit. At least the talk page shows I tried. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
What this basically is a director's cut, right? (as I'm reading the Seattle PI article), the added footage helping on the film? The easiest example where new meaning comes about on a film with the added content is The Abyss, which you'll see has a "Special Edition" section and the approach you can replicate here. Basically, here for DD, you can explain what the added content is, and that it has been identified to help explain some of the film's more interpretative narratives (this is all sourcable, so far so good). The next step however, of saying what those interpretations are is outside our bounds. You can give examples - taking from the first PI link above (the 2004 article), you can example that the added content explains some of the philosophical aspects of the tangent dimension. But because we don't have a lot of sources that actually document what those aspects are, we shouldn't go into it in depth. Remember, as a tertiary source, we're not the only reference people should be looking at, and highlight the fact that there is more if the reader needs to understand the interpretation of the movie. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
After all this, you say the POTT (or DOTT) helps to explain some of the more interpretative narratives and some of the philosophical aspects of the Tangent Universe. Disregarding everything I've shown you saying the book explains the creation and destruction of the setting, the central plotline and the motivation for every single character. The whole movie, in other words.
Have it your way, then. Whatever you folks choose to mention or ignore in the article is fine by me. It had a good run. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The POTT (sorry, I've got a few similar acronyms in my head) is an in-universe element. Yes, it helps to explain the movie but only one source (As I'm reading the above) appears to go into any of the details. All of the other sources describe what that aspect is about but make no attempt to analyze or evaluate it. In other words, the POTT part is important to mention as an extension of the film, but it is not important enough to drill down to understand it beyond that level, for a general encyclopedia like WP, particularly when only one other source bothers to do that. Further, as the work is all in-universe, even with the aid of that secondary source, there's a lot of potential for interpretation, likely unintentional, but enough to be a concern. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Details, analysis and evaluation. But yeah, as A Thousand Doors helpfully pointed out, one is written by an unemployed engineer, one author is named Dan Smith and one website has other sections about video games. So clearly, they don't amount to anything. If they worked for an editor who doublechecked whether they're inventing parts of the film (impossible for any of us), it would be a different story.
Makes perfect sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS. It would be one thing if it was, say, a notable film critic or a college professor in film - someone with an established reputation - that was providing the analysis. These are, for all purposes, random people on the Internet. Are their interpretations wrong? No (at least, not likely), but they're just random people, and fail to meet RS requirements. There is no way that would give them any weight on their statements for that purpose. If there are simply no reliable sources that cover an aspect of a topic (in this case the deeper interpretation of Donnie Darko), we can't include in. For purposes of a general purpose encyclopedia, it is not necessary for us to provide that interpretation section, either. We can state there are additional materials that help understand the film better, but what that understanding is, without RS to back it up, is something left to the reader to research on their own. It is only a facet of those coming here to learn about the film's fiction - everything else is geared towards the general reader. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand the rules. I also understand we can break them for the greater good. In an article like this, it's reasonable to assume a "general reader" may be one who watched the movie, got confused and Googled it. Wikipedia has developed a great reputation and Google Ranking, and we have a responsibility. If someone leaves here still thinking "What the hell happened?", they can find it elsewhere, sure, but we failed to educate. Succeeding in following protocol doesn't balance it out.
If a "random" person (or four) is right, and a rational outsider can verify this, that's exactly what an encyclopedia needs, regardless of job titles or prestige. This film is highly notable for confusing viewers, and this article is sorely lacking an answer.
Also lacking any sources in the Release section. But yeah, that section's too big to fail. After all, the rulebook says we need one like that, and when a movie is released in New York is pretty important stuff. Not to mention the DVD packaging. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If this film is notable for confusing viewers (which I recognize is true), then we should have plenty of non-fansite, RS articles to explain that, yes? But... we don't. This is basically why DD is a cult film - it has a strong following but it never gains the attention of the larger population/audience. If mainstream source don't go into detail on the interpretation, it's not our place to expand into that. Remember, as a general encyclopedia, this article about a film. Not it's narrative, but how it was a published work - ergo, its release, its reception, ticket sales, home media, and any legacy it may have. The plot is a necessary but inconsequential aspect to that (this is why we do allow plot summaries within the scope of WP:NOT#PLOT - they're usually necessary to understand the rest). --MASEM (t) 18:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you recognize the film is notably confusing, and that there are not plenty of reliable sources, your "should have" assumption is obviously wrong. And if the film hasn't gained the attention of mass audiences, why should we write for them instead of our likely readership (curious viewers)?
I absolutely disagree that plot is inconsequential. If this movie was a generic romantic comedy, it would have nothing of the same legacy. Box office would likely be much higher, but rentals would be way down. Critics would treat it like The Proposal. There would be no need for a Director's Cut. A film is a story told in light and sound. Everything else is just everything else (sourced by-the-book or not). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You're saying "notably confusing". That means sources have noted it is confusing. I personally recognize that it can be confusing (it took me a few watches to understand the order of events), but as a WP editor, I can't inject that into this article, we need a source to do that, otherwise it's original research. And unless the plot itself is the subject of significant discussion, it is inconsequential across the board, whether its a film like this or a go-nowhere romantic comedy. There's more to a movie than just the story - its the directing, the acting, the camera work, the effects, the sound editors, etc. Plot is just one facet, and once we can't focus on without a multitude of sources to do that. We need to describe the plot concisely, so that readers can understand facets of the production of the movie in context, but that's it. You're also wrong that the target audience are those familiar with the film. The audience we expect are people that are completely unfamiliar with the film, but need to learn the basics about it as a reference guide. Those that have seen the film are more likely going to use other wikis and fansites to learn more. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Any problem with my latest edit? Seems you'd be OK with it, but I may have misunderstood you. No interpretation at all here. The first three sources note it was confusing (before the Director's Cut helped). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It was still far too much detail. That said, I relocated that Salon article (That is your biggest asset here because it specifically says "Donnie is the Receiver" (And other statements) which we otherwise couldn't make from the text of POTT alone). I've trimmed down that bit but made sure to make the key points (Tangent Universe, Artefact, destruction of both universes) there. There's plenty more possible interpretation but far more than sources would allow, but the reader can follow allow to get more if they need them. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Better than nothing. Like I said earlier, whatever you'd like to mention or ignore is fine. You (or someone) might want to read it over for spelling and grammar, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donnie Darko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donnie Darko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed some of the Plot Summary

Hello,

I made some changes to the plot summary section of this article for plot accuracy sake. The summary had stated that Donnie meets Roberta Sparrow while with his friends, when he had met her with his dad after almost running her over in their car. The quote whispered to Donnie by Grandma Death also was one word off from the actual quote, so I changed that too. Besides that I just added a small detail about Donnie flooding his school. 4/25/21 ENGL1121 198.254.26.2 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jplute.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Poph55.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Frank as Elizabeth's Boyfriend

The current text states: "The driver turns out to be Elizabeth's boyfriend, Frank Anderson". As far as I can tell, the only source for this is in the DVD commentary and the director's cut. In the theatrical cut, Frank as Elizabeth's boyfriend is never mentioned. The closest it comes to this is at the Halloween party, when Elizabeth asks, "Hey, have you guys seen Frank?" All this tells us is that Elizabeth knows someone named Frank. This seems to be a far cry from confirming that Frank is her boyfriend. If a plot point is not clear or even implied in the movie, should it really be inserted here based upon other comments/works of the director? Unique sandwich (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donnie_Darko/Archive_3&oldid=1170261512"