Talk:Dark City/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] Spoiler warning

To keep with the standard, let's keep the spoiler warning at the top of the article. This article does contain spoilers, and a link to the warning page would be useful for vistors to this page. -- LGagnon 16:00, Dec 18, 2003

[edit] Commentary track

Heh. It took me all of 20 seconds to remember Ebert did the commentary track, get up, check my DVD to verify it, sit back down and I notice you already added it. You're just too fast for me, apparently. :) RADICALBENDER★ 04:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Schreber

Someone edited the "Similarities to other works" section recently and gave middle names for the real and fictional Daniel Schrebers. I haven't seen any sources to back either up, and I think someone should explain where they got them from. -- LGagnon 03:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Googling for "Daniel Paul Schreber" and "Daniel Poe Schreber" will get you plenty of people who independently agree with User:Goblin. Which is not to say that they're not all wrong, mind you. --Paul A 03:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Why is this article located at Dark City (1998) instead of Dark City (which redirects to Dark City (1998))? bbx 19:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was previously disambiguated... I've restored that now, but in a different format. --Joy [shallot] 22:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The sun

Someone changed John's creation of the sun to him turning the city towards the sun. Is there any proof that he actually did this? As far as I remember, the sun wasn't there until after John used his powers to make it exist. -- LGagnon 18:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I watched the movie last night and it's said quite specifically a few times that John can control the machines under the city, allowing him to control everything within the city. The sun, obviously, is beyond that. The camerawork at the end of the movie definitely gives the impression that the city is being rotated towards an existing sun rather than one being created whole cloth. I didn't make that change, but I agree with it. - Matt Shepherd
My impression was that John either created a representation of the sun, or allowed the existing one to shine through - where it had been hidden.

--Mr kitehead 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category dieselpunk

I don't understand why it should not be allowed to be placed within the dieselpunk category when it blatantly promotes the ideas and themes prevalent in the Dieselpunk world. Explain to me otherwise, because I see no reason for it not to listed alongside other works of fiction within the category. Piecraft 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't dieselpunk require diesel as a major element? It isn't in Dark City. Could you provide some examples for your argument instead of just "check the article", because that doesn't point out your point clear enough. -- LGagnon 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Examples of the dieselpunk themes that exist in Dark City would mostly be the advanced technology/society based upon the late 1930-50s world which is pretty clear I'm sure. Also the inner-workings of the actual planet which is composed of gears and cogs and other forms of mechanical construction present another aspect of the diesel-working universe. The whole idea behind the planet and an "apocalypse" also presents purpose for Dark City being dieselpunk. In otherwords as is explained in the article (this is why I told you to look over it), a post-apocalyptic world where society and its people have forgotten their past is later overrun and ruled by mechanical technology which can be seen in the movie. There are so many elements which make Dark City perfectly fit into this category. Let's look over it again:
  • -society based around 1930s-1950s
  • -technology also seems to be an advanced form which is based around 1930s-1950s
  • -the post-apocalyptic scenario which is a dominant sub-theme to dieselpunk, however it seems that after the "cataclysm" in Dark City that society was stabilised within a time period, unliek most case scenarios in post-apocalyptic dieselpunl, but this only further justifies the movie further because instead of regressing into a primitive Mad Max landscape, Dark City was saved by "hidden aliens" who have reverted society back to a nostalgic era.
  • -the construction and physical working of the planet is a sample of the style and type of technology present in dieselpunk, formed on outdated technology only in based on more modern concepts - the same can be seen with Steampunk (steam-based) and Cyberpunk (cybernetics) - in this case we see atomic technology which is clearly how the planet functions as a floating island. Remember Dieselpunk also = Atomicpunk and does not completely rely on a world whose only source of fuel is diesel, Dark City would have us believe it is set in an alternative era of the 1950s at the start of the film (before we find out the truth) and thus we would automatically assume a post-WW2 environment where fuel is scarce in any case - this is the basic element in most casea. However in Dark City it's pretty straightforward that the technology although modified is still based on the 1950s which means to say that it is majorly inspired by diesel and atomic technologies. And the very inner-workings of the planet's core reactor also provides evidence of this as well.

In summary this movie if anything defines the genre perfectly through its narrative and the themes present. It presents a dystopic world, it also presents a sense of "lacking" within society along with the major elements present within the dieselpunk universe which are listed on the main article examples such as The Red Scare (invasion), Atomic Age (nuclear power being introduced), Suburbia (estructuring of society into new community developments), Space Race (conquest of Outer Space) and so on... each of these factors have been manipulated to fit the world that is Dark City. The film's look and style borrow from Noir and Expressionism two major components to the look and overall style of Dieselpunk - other examples would be Metropolis or Sky Captain. Piecraft 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The dieselpunk category is a disaster. It's a group of unrelated articles retroactively categorized and shoehorned to fit the vision of a handful of fans. The creators of nearly all the works in that category never intended them to be thought of in that light, and almost certainly never even considered it. - EurekaLott 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Consider Film Noir; your characterization also applies to it ("creaters ... never intended ... never considered") as it was a term not coined until well after the bulk of the films were created, and the creaters were not aware that they were working within a genre. Somegeek 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Firstly EurekaLott your argument in wrong, the category was put up for deletion by YOU and unbelievably everyone voted to keep it in because they see it as much as a relevant category as Steampunk or Cyberpunk. I doubt that Jules Verne or H.G. Wells ever considered their works of fiction as Steampunk. Of course the creators of most of the works of fiction in the Dieselpunk category never intended them to be thought in that light originally, but as time progresses it has been categorised as so by the followers of Dieselpunk. It is a theme that works alongside Cyberpunk and Steampunm to justify a certain world and its technology. Before you begin spouting off your own opinion I would regret to guide you to the Steampunk category page where Bride of Frankenstein is listed as well as other "unfamiliar" works as would have them called. Steampunk and Dieselpunk are still relatively new genres and therefore only have a handful of writers or artists who carry it's theme, whereas this category is merely attemtping to place past works of fiction.


If steampunk requires steam and cyperpunk requires cybernetics, dieselpunk should require diesel. I have no opinion on the merits of dieselpunk as a category, but to apply it to an entry diesel should be required. Maybe the City runs on diesel. Maybe the City runs on mice. I don't know, but nothing in the movie or piecraft's argument suggests diesel. --Ccranium 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point but you seem to forget that dieselpunk is also known as atomicpunk - it's a combination of both nuclear power and diesel fuel which is a dominant factor to 1930s-1950s society - are we supposed to believe simply because they do not physically show us diesel fuel or even refer to it by discussing it in the mvoie that there is no probable or even possibility that the world of Dark City is based around it? I already pointed out their technology and even the planet's core reactor which are all in my opinion appear to be mechanical constructs that seem to be part of atomic/dieselpunk. If you can convince me otherwise that the reactor in the planet was cybernetics or steam then please do so - otherwise to me it seems pretty clear that it works as an engine - and I am willing to believe it must function on some sort of fuel. So whether it's nuclear driven or diesel-activated I am more than 99.9% it is based around a modern constrcut of the technology from the 1930s-1950s era - only in a modernised or advanced state. Therefore you have yet to point out to me how this movie is not dieselpunk-affiliated seeing as so far it seems to fall intot he category quite easily with all the related themes and technology in it. Piecraft 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
By your criteria all work in which the engine type is not specifically disambiguated from Diesel would be acceptable. Moreover an unimpressive 622 results on Google for "atomicpunk" belies your "also known as" claim -- perhaps a gauge of actual usage should be applied to the ever-expanding "-punk" retroactive categorization currently plauging anything vaguely resembling speculative fiction. Pndmnm 20:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
According to the Dieselpunk entry, "Dieselpunk is an alternate-history environment in which the most important aspect of society is diesel fuel, and the machinery that depends upon it." The most important aspect of Dark City's society is not diesel fuel, from the movie whatever fuel source drives the city is completely irrelevant to the story. Other punk classifications make heavy use of it's defining feature. In steampunk, steam engines and machinery driven by steam are heavily featured. In cyberpunk networks and cyberspace and interactions between people and technology are heaviliy featured. Diesel and/or atomic energy were not at all features of Dark City. It is dystopic, it is alternate history, it is not dieselpunk. --Ccranium 20:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that -punk genres don't rely only to technology and being centered around the first element of the word (steam, diesel, atomic or whatever), it also relies on look and feel, atmosphere, and general mood, as well as this alternative 'could be but isn't' feeling. For example New Rose Hotel, Robocop and Rise of the Dragon are classified as cyberpunk although the main theme is absent: cyberspace (of course there are cybernetics in Robocop, but robotics is not the main theme). What makes them cyberpunk is the world they belong and most important: aesthetics. IMHO Dark City's aesthetics can be classfied only as Dieselpunk. Yes, it's retroactive classification, but language and words were invented for this reason, especially since it is compared to Brasil and Metropolis. Pictureuploader 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have a perfectly good phrase for that 'could be but isn't' feeling, which is speculative fiction. Adding a classification taxonomy which completely divorces the meaning of the label from the component words is a legitimate but poor use of language, and justifying it only by internal claims (for example, declaring that Dark City is "dieselpunk" by comparing it to other films which have already been declared "dieselpunk") is an error in distinction which will only lead to confusion. Provide me with a list of critera which can be applied to a work to determine that it is "dieselpunk," and which when taken together do not apply to any other genre, and I will be satisfied. Pndmnm 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


What makes them cyberpunk is the world they belong and most important: aesthetics. IMHO Dark City's aesthetics can be classfied only as Dieselpunk. So you're just applying an arbitrary definition of what a "diesel" aesthetic is? What's the point of picking "dieselpunk" instead of "gaspunk" or "ottopunk" (after all, the engines all look pretty much the same) or "Safewaybrandfignewtonlookalikepunk"? --Dandy

Because I am not aware of the genres gaspunk or ottopunk, which I think are fictitous examples by you. Dieselpunk is an attested terminology and an established aesthetic genre, as well as Steampunk and Atomicpunk, which Dark City clearly isn't. If there is actually a genre called Gaspunk, I would happily argue about whether Dark City is the one or the other Pictureuploader 13:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
So basically all of you are saying what's the point of having a Cyberpunk or Steampunk categories? because why is it that as Pictureuploader has already explained such movies as Repo Man, New Rose Hotel and Robocop are classified under Cyberpunk? Or why is it that Bride of Frankenstein, From the Earth to the Moon or The Island of Dr. Moreau are classified as Steampunk? Explain to me why? In NONE of those works of fiction are steam or cybernetics present. ALbeit Robocop as mentioned has 'robotics but does not seem to possess the same elements as for instance The Matrix in terms of cybernetics and cyberspace. The reason is because Cyberpunk is classified as the whole shebang! And to explain that is basically to analyse and explore its major themes, the atmosphere and the world to which most of the films and literary works take place in. The same is applied to Steampunk so why can it not be applied in Dieselpunk when it clearly is the same? The game Children of the Sun is mainly fantasy-based however is set within the context of a dieselpunk world as Lewis Pollak has mentioned - and it was this term that he used to create the definition of the 1930s-1950s alternative time to which most movies and literary works of cition can be applied to. In the case of giving you a list of how Dark City would fit into the dieselpunk world - well look at my above statements, I don't understand otherwise how you would have missed all the elements which are staring you right in the face. Dark City is and I quote a review from IMDb Proyas takes ideas and ambience from many other movies but integrates them all neatly into Dark City. Gotham City is clearly seen as is Metropolis and other influences such as Ed Hopper's "Nighthawks" dominate in the diner scenes. The forty-ish era (yet strangely futuristic) city is known to be populated, and yet it is ominously empty (hence one of Hopper's main themes, isolation in large cities). (It's especially quiet at midnight, hehehehe... ;D ) This 40's era ambience together with the sci-fi fantasy undercurrent makes for a very interesting feeling while watching. At the end of the day it's just a category listing, if it's going to effect you that bad then Heaven's to Betsy don't let me bother you then, if it's simply to allow an easier access for people browsing literary and cultural categories to gather an idea of the "type" of work that is listed then by all means leave it out! Piecraft 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Piecraft, what we are saying is that you saying "This movie is dieselpunk because it shares a few traits with these other things I say are dieselpunk" is not a compelling argument. Perhaps the discussion needs to take place at Talk:Dieselpunk to narrow down your definition of it. The things you use to describe the aesthetic of the movie are not unique to dieselpunk. Yes, this movie likely shares an aesthetic with cyber- and steampunk, but the question is what makes it dieselpunk. Is it simply the time period? The alternate history? It is science fiction. It is alternate history. --Ccranium 01:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole dieselpunk thing seems highly problematic to me. "Cyberpunk" was a consciously adopted idea, and was immediately taken up by critics, etc. "Steampunk" also seems to be something which authors have consciously accepted as a genre. On the otherhand, "Dieselpunk" seems to consist largely of back-appropriations of things that did not consider themselves to be "Dieselpunk". Let's look first at the list of Cyberpunk literature:

The term was quickly appropriated as a label to be applied to the works of Bruce Sterling, John Shirley, William Gibson, Rudy Rucker, Michael Swanwick, Pat Cadigan, Lewis Shiner, Richard Kadrey, and others. Of these, Sterling became the movement's chief ideologue, thanks to his fanzine Cheap Truth. (See also John Shirley's articles on Sterling and Rucker [4].) It then goes on to note that Others noted that almost all traits claimed to be uniquely cyberpunk could in fact be found in older writers' works — often citing J. G. Ballard, Philip K. Dick, Harlan Ellison, Samuel R. Delany, even William S. Burroughs. Now, the former part of the list constitutes a conscious literary movement, or, at least, a movement recognized at the time by critics. The latter, influences section, is more questionable. It is to be noted that of those authors, only Dick is in Category:Cyberpunk. Even so, the article clearly distinguishes the Cyberpunk movement, as a semicoherent literary movement, from the ideas of cyberpunk, which are traced back to earlier influences.

Now let's look at the list of Dieselpunk literature:

Beyond the complete incoherence of this list (Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang, 1984, War of the Worlds, and a Tom Clancy book are the same genre?), it is to be noted that, at a guess, none of these works was part of any conscious literary "dieselpunk" movement. They don't even have the same level of thematic coherence that the second list of cyberpunk influences (Dick, Delaney, etc.) have. They are just a list of books that have been appropriated to the apparently virtually non-existent genre of "dieselpunk". john k 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this problem goes far beyond Dieselpunk. The list of literary punk genres is riddled with articles that consist entirely of back-appropriations, including (but not limited to) Sandalpunk, Nazipunk, and Middlepunk. While there is a strange sort of preciousness in Piecraft's and Pictureuploader's desire to categorize a wide range of literary works as reflecting an "x-punk" sensibility, the lack of references coupled with Piecraft's admission that there is little information to be found on these extremely obscure literary punk genres leads me to think that the articles are little more than extended POV exercises. Avogadro94 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole mess needs to be deleted? john k 19:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems like the best way to deal with the situation, otherwise we could easily see conflicts break out over whether a literary work should be categorized as "x-punk" or "y-punk". These categories appear so subjective that they are rendered meaningless. Avogadro94 19:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to delete every shred of it, but at the very least, the articles and categories need a severe pruning. Unfortunately, the subject did not generate this level of attention when I nominated the dieselpunk category for deletion earlier this month, and it may be too soon to re-nominate it. - EurekaLott 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] whats it rated?

i dont think the article tells the rating ... --Nerd42 03:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of the Technical data section. -- LGagnon 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Proyas and Why The Strangers Use Knives

I remember that, when this movie was released, there was some todo made about why the strangers used knives in this movie instead of something like a gun. The reason given was that Proyas really wanted to avoid the use of guns as much as possible, due to the tragedy surrounding the film "The Crow", which he directed immediately prior to this one. He couldn't justify removing all guns from the film, which is why the humans still used them, but that he jumped at the chance to give the Strangers a different weapon. I recall this being brought up in an interview or two, but it wasn't something that anyone associated with the film really like to bring up too much. Thing is, I can't seem to find any decent information to confirm this now. Anyone got any leads? Did I just imagine all of this? --Reverend Loki 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical reception

I know this will upset the fanboy celebration of this movie, but why not something about the massively negative critical and audience reception to this movie? Ebert liked it, but so what? He's only one critic among many and not terribly influential, despite being famous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs) 14:44, June 19, 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Rotten Tomatoes critic meter registered a 77% favorable rating from 52 critic reviews for this movie. I don't think I'd use "massively negative" to describe 12/52 negative reviews. It also received an average 6.8/10 review. Compare it to a similar film, Strange Days, from a few years earlier. For Strange Days, the budget was twice as large and it grossed only a third as much worldwide when compared to Dark City. I'd say the audience reception of Dark City was just fine (gross box office broke even with it's estimated budget which most movies can't say). I think you are wrong on both accounts. ju66l3r 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, aside from that fact that "fanboy" might be a violation of WP:CIV, if you can state your case in an appropriately WP:NPOV way, you're obviously welcom to be bold and edit the article. But please note that lots of movies that are now seen as great were not immediate critical or box-office successes. The Wizard of Oz comes to mind as does The Shawshank Redemption. Atlant 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: this topic was started by a now-blocked trolling user. Acalamari 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality rating for this Film Article

So, I was looking at Articles By Quality, and was wondering about where this one fit into their rating scheme. Personally, I find myself wishing there was a level between "Start" and "B", though using just what they have given us, I'm thinking it fits best into the "B" category. It definitely has a way to go before climbing higher than that. Ayways, I thought I would solicit opinions from anyone else watching this article before taking any action. Folks? --Reverend Loki 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, having just read the entire article immediately after I watched the film for the first time on dvd (it's 4am now and I certainly recommend watching this title late in the evening), I felt the need to say that the article, despite being a bit short, seems very well written to me. I particularly enjoyed the "similarities to other works" section. It provides a certain depth without being excessively long. I checked the film articles by quality category you've mentioned and my vote would be somewhere between "B" and "GA" classes. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nosferatu

The aliens remind me of Nosferatu. --Error 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Alien visitation films

I reverted the addition of Category:Alien visitation films to this article, but I see my edit was also reverted. I feel the category is not appropriate here, for several reasons. The category description refers to "films [that] have been made about aliens visiting the Earth", and Earth doesn't even appear in Dark City. It's not exactly Close Encounters of the Third Kind or The Day the Earth Stood Still. While it's possible that the residents of the city were abducted from Earth, there's no reason to assume that's the case, and frankly, it doesn't matter to the story. I still think the article has no business being in the category. - EurekaLott 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I put it into Alien visitation films, I have to agree it doesn't belong there. I have been sorting out the cats on so many films...mistakes happen! Anyway, I have now moved it to Space adventure films which is more accurate as the Alien visitation cat was intended for films about Aliens on Earth. Mallanox 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think Category:Space adventure films is more appropriate. The category has no description, but I assume it includes movies that feature people flying around in spaceships. If that's the case, the category fits Dark City just as poorly as Category:Alien visitation films did. - EurekaLott 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
While it's possible that the residents of the city were abducted from Earth, there's no reason to assume that's the case,

Dr. Schrieber explicitly states "We were abducted". Although he doesn't say "from the Earth", it's pretty clear from the general setting of the movie that these people are humans and the setting is an Earthlike mileau; I think one can safely conclude the subjects of the experiment were abducted directly from the Earth.

Atlant 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About muting the beginning of the film

I have just reverted the addition (again) of the line "Many fans of the film prefer to keep the film on mute for the first 5 minutes as it gives away the entire plot twist". No one who has added it that I see has given any reasoning for why it should be included, while those who have removed it have often explained why. The statement is without any citation, yet makes grand statements about the viewing practices of this movie's fans. This is exactly the type of claim that needs citation of reliable sources in order to be included in this article. Please don't try and add it again unless you can convince us of the statement's validity through documentation. --Reverend Loki 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/r/Talk%7EDark_City_Archive_1_0eee.html"