Talk:Strange Days (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

night setting

"* All scenes in the movie are either set or filmed at night." Removed from Trivia because its not true. --m4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.76.225 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Genre: Film noir, cyberpunk, dystopia?

Hi all, i´m changing the "film noir" statement in the beggining to include something about the cyberpunk genre; of wich i consider this movie to be a fine example. Moreso, i find quite strange not having it mentioned in the article, neither on this nor the cyberpunk one. Both genres, noir and cyberpunk are very related indeed, anyway ( see Cyberpunk entry ).

I don´t like the phrasing i came up with, though ( i speak spanish first, and i´m also very sleepy at the moment )

gorsh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.246.171 (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not changing the genre stuff, but I want to problematize it a little bit. I am a huge cyberpunk fan and I think that this is really a movie that adopts the aesthetics of cyberpunk (apocalyptic crises, Biblical/ancient naming systems, futuristic dress/equipment), but ultimately undermines the political message that has long been part and parcel of cyberpunk. Cyberpunk narratives tend to involve an apocalyptic event that has or does or will create a political setting in which an anarchistic, populistic movement rises against an increasingly corporate and normative state. The social space created by this movement tends to allow for a reformulating of social constructions--gender, race, class, etc. Strange Days shows the (white) institutionalized state--namely, the police commissioner--as an ultimately benevolent force that fights racism. If anything, this is an anti-cyberpunk film.

-gwen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclashing (talk • contribs) 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also on the subject of genre -- there's a grim view of the future, but I don't think it really qualifies as "dystopian" --lquilter 13:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

its not dystopian, not really cyberpunk altho it has some elements... -- Compn 20:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we use instead of "dystopian"? And cyberpunk? Padillah 17:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree the film is dystopian. The fact that the Police Commissioner is honest enough to arrest the two renegade cops is, itself, proof against dystopia. Except for the SQUIDs there's not a whole lot of attitudes that you wouldn't find now-a-days. The situation is deteriorating but it's not dystopic by any means. I think it should be bleak, at most "declining toward dystopic". Padillah 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with you on this point. I am not yet convinced of the issues surrounding the cyberpunk genre, but I think youmake a valid point. Go ahead and make the appropriate change, and I will back it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The film is used in several books on film as an example of neo noir that engages cyber punk themes. I'll post some sources later. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.175.55 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Anglo activity?

What does "anti-Anglo activity" mean and refer to? --Loremaster 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between main characters Lenny Nero and Lornette Mason

Lornette Mason is not just "secretly in love with" Nero; as he is, he has no obvious endearing qualities. However there is a scene in the film which illustrates how they met and why she remains his long-suffering loyal friend.

Flashback to when Mason was not yet in her security job and Nero was still a cop. She comes home to her appartment to find it the subject of a drug bust: cops everywhere, bulletholes, dead loser boyfriend. She has a young son and fears the worst, but storming into his bedroom she finds him happily engaged with Nero, reading a children's book, oblivious to most of what is going on. Nero kept him safe. Mason has not forgotten that. "Feelings fade. They're made that way for a reason", she once says. But some are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexxo (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's "'Memories' fade ..." and Mace is most definitely in love with Nero as demonstrated when he asks her "Have you ever loved someone and they didn't love you back?" Mace's reaction leaves little to doubt. That and she blatantly says "I have feelings for you, maybe more than you know". She comes home to her house, not apartment. Her S.O. is not dead, she smacks him around for having done this in front of her son. I'll edit this when I get home, I've got it TiVo'ed. Padillah 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No need, Padillah - you are absolutely correct. I actually got away with writing a paper on this for my film class ("Saving a Soul in Two Hours - Redemption in Film"). It's a damn shame this film set an expiration date in itself by dovetailing so completely to Y2k, because it was an awesome movie, and - not to sound like a total guy here - Angela Bassett is utterly hot in a chauffeur's uniform. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked, she says "Memories were meant to fade, the were designed that way for a reason." and "I care about you Lenny, a lot more than you know." Padillah 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited info moved to here

I have removed the following sections fromt he article and placed them here, as they do not provide any citations for their suppositions. They are here instead of simply being purged because I have come to recognize that there might be some redeeming value to them. If any of the statements can be adequately (RS, V, etc.) cited, they can return to the article. Otherwise, here they must remain. Please feel free to debate the removal of these items (as opposed to the generous use of fact/cn tags) below.

Philosophical and social features'

The film plays with gender stereotypes, making the lead a weak ex-cop who is heavily dependent on a strong woman. Although the action heroine is a clearly visible type in all of Cameron's films, Bigelow made this theme even more explicit, dressing Fiennes in elegant, colorful printed silk shirts while Bassett wears suits and masculine leather outfits.

Also, the striking feature of the film is the final scene in which Lenny and Mace kiss and find their true love behind the friendship, having in mind the that the US audience (and especially the producers) generally discourage the mixed-race relationships on screen. The threat of "not being accepted well" did not discourage the director to change the ending.

The film also tries to pose many questions and resolve some of them, like the question of friendship/love (Lenny/Mace, Lenny/Faith), protective love (Lenny protecting Faith, while Mace protects Lenny), moral, the direction in which the society goes in the West, reality/virtual reality, the line where the non-chemical-drug addiction starts (TV, films, Internet, reality shows, video games etc.).

Sources and Inspiration

• The title Strange Days comes from the song (and album) of the same name by The Doors. Metal band Prong performs a cover version of the song on the movie soundtrack, accompanied by original Doors member Ray Manzarek.
• The film's central science-fiction idea is using high-tech equipment to record a person's experience, then distributing that recording to a second person who can re-live the experience over and over as "virtual reality." This idea was mined previously by William Gibson, who featured the SQUID-like "simstim" devices in his Neuromancer and other cyberpunk novels. As in those novels, potential parallels are drawn between these recordings and addictive drugs. Also, the possibility of recording the experience of someone in the act of death brings heavy metaphysical implications. This same set of ideas was previously explored in the 1983 film Brainstorm, and subsequently in Dennis Potter's 1996 TV drama Cold Lazarus.
• The killer's MO, in which the victims are forced to view their own death while their reactions are recorded, carries significant similarities to the murder device used by the killer in Peeping Tom.
• The 1995 film The City of Lost Children contains a first-person POV scene of murder nearly identical to the one in Strange Days, including using a device to force the victim to "experience" the sensations of the murderer.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that in as much as these sections add relevant content and have not been tagged for any amount of time they should be tagged with {{fact}} and the editors allowed to defend themselves. I have a problem with the section Sources and Inspiration since it appears to be a Trivia section in disguise, but again, let's tag it and see if we can't clean it up rather than gut it out. BTW don't forget to sign your posts. Padillah 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that they add intersting content, but without citations, they simply cannot be in the article. Clearly, we disagree on how fact/cn tags should be utilized, but I know for a fact that a lot of the material moved her has been sitting in the article in one form or another for months, which is completely unacceptable.

To be fair, I was too hasty is just purging it before (I had been working the Star Wars Force and Sith articles and boy, was there a lot of uncited material there, and some of that disgust may have spilled over here), and I have rectified that past error by placing the material here. This way, it remains whole and relatively undisturbed until we can find citations for it. I agree that the S&I section is likely entirely trivia, but we don't know what was on Kate Bigelow's (or the screenwriter's) mind at the time of titling, so until we do, we need to keep it here.

While I usually hate trivia sections, I have found that if they are removed to the Discussion sections, they are usually used in the article when cited or cannibalized for other parts of the article. If my outright purging of it last time upset you, please understand that no slight was intended. However, we are not "gutting" the article; we are ensuring that what is in the article is solid muscle, and no fat in the form of uncited material - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, thanks. I agree I don't just want content for contents sake - it's got to be verifiable. I'm going to give it 'till Friday night and if no one else weighs in I'll post a request for third party input. Padillah 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say not to wait, but instead start that process now. They tend to take a while to address. (I am a 3O mediator, and there is usually a bit of backlog). If you know some admins, you could ask them to weigh in as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading the removed text and I'm not sure I want that gunk back in after all (I know, you hate me now). I did a plot outline for Still Crazy please read it and let me know if that's appropriate here as well. If nothing more than a jump-off point to revise and grow. Padillah 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

I have read the this talk page and seem to understand the issue. At this time, my opinion is that the information should be put back into the artilce with fact and cite tages as appropriate. An effort to find the original editors of this informaiton could be performed to determine if there are genuine references for the information. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, had you noted the date on the tags? Some had been there for months. Without the citations, the moved material is essentially trivia. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. In reviewing the passage pasted into the talk page above, I note only one fact tag that has a Sept 07 date on it. Perhaps the other bullets and other passages could be marked for discussion as well. Could you find the original authors of the work? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall there being a few more when i visited the article some time ago, but some have apparently been removed. I am not saying that cites cannot be found, and the text belongs in the bin. I am just saying that, due to how much of it is uncited, it really needs some more citation before it goes in, otherwise it looks like a mass of trivia. I am not opposed to keeping it here - I moved it here, after all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material

Removed the trivis section to here, as its largely unsourced, but seems salvageable:

• Juliette Lewis' two songs in the film, both originally written and performed by PJ Harvey, are performed by Juliette in the film.
• The extended POV (point of view) shots used in the "wire trip" sequences required Bigelow's team to create entirely new, lightweight 35mm cameras. These were shot by Steadicam operator (and Cameron regular) Jimmy Muro on the custom, lightweight rig first used for the foot chase in Bigelow's 1991 film Point Break.
• To stage the countdown to 2000, four city blocks were closed off near the Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles. To get the needed ten to twelve thousand extras for the scene, a concert was organized. The "Millennium" event was advertised in print and on local radio stations, and attracted Angelinos from all walks of life. Live music, including performers Aphex Twin, Lady Miss Kier and Doc Martin kept the energy high while the production raffled off trips to Hawaii and other door prizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had the DVD. I remember watching it and hearing that Juliette Lewis did sing her two songs. They were quite impressed with her voice and were glad that she could do it (to lend authenticity)... but I have no citable source. It's just what I remember. Padillah 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely cite 'Hardly Wait' was performed by Lewis; it's on the soundtrack CD and is identical to the track in the movie. I own the CD personally, but here's the amazon listing: http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Days-Music-Motion-Picture/dp/B000002B7B/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4906440-4359802?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1194195784&sr=8-2. You can infer she does indeed perform the later song and I'm fairly sure it was mentioned in end credits as it was on cable last night, but that I can't point a source for. 75.39.15.138 17:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)MD

remake of Brainstorm

has anyone noted that this film is, in essence, a remake of the 1983 classic "Brainstorm"? ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_%281983_film%29— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgi345 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because it involves the recording and playback of the contents of the human mind does not make Strange Days a remake of Brainstorm. The plots of both movies are completely different with the whole mind reading part being the only true commonality. Kakaze (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Strangedays.jpeg

Image:Strangedays.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot description reads like a review, not a summary

A Wikipedia entry shouldn't be concerned with "spoiling" the ending of the movie, which the plot description seems to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.36.24 (talk • contribs)

You are absolutely right. A most excellent way to get started is to change it so the entire story is given. Just make sure it doesn't go into so much detail that it goes on and on. If you need help, give me a shout. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

who produced this

the page as of now says james cameron and thats the only name

i watched the movie and accorning to the credits produced by james cameron steven0 charless

Executive Producers Rae Sanchiss Lawrence Kasahoff

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps (talk • contribs) 19:58, September 17, 2009

I added the second producer. We do not list executive producers in that field. Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

bias of this article

this article is extremely biased by not giving light to any criticism. the movie cost 42 million to make and only grossed 8 million. it was produced and written by james cameron but was one of the biggest hollywood flops ever. and.. in my mind, this might have been one of the worst movies i've ever seen. how about someone pastes more negative reaction quotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.1.143 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Find the sources and cite the reviews and you can add whatever you want. No offense but your opinion is not appropriate for inclusion but the rest is fair game. Any citable professional review can be added by anyone. Thanks for the offer. Padillah (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

J.D. (talk · contribs) added the "Reception" section, so he would be the person to contact. Based on what I have read, the section seems to be a little too positive. We should find retrospective coverage of the film to determine what critics as a whole thought of it and use that as a gauge. Erik (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just included some of the major critics of the time and most of the reviews were positive. I did include two negatives: San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times were not too keen on it. There are films that were received well by critics but flopped at the box office.--J.D. (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)