Talk:Déjà Vu (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Writer/Director?

And where can I contact the writer or director? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk • contribs)

If you're referring to my comment, "a writer/director authorized explanation", you can't contact them, and even if you could, it would still be original research. (Unless you hosted the conversation on a reputable website.) What I meant by that was something like writer/director commentary on the DVD or writer/director interviews in print or on television. These would be reliable sources that we could cite. See WP:NOR.Alexanderwales 07:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Plot Holes

I removed the "timeline" graphic, because it's original research. The graphic was created by a user on IMDB. This movie needs either a new section for the numerous plot holes in the movie, or a writer/director authorized explanation for the film. Alexanderwales 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stub?

should this be a stub? it's 3 lines long. --Meizawotmeiz 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

   ok, i guess it's not a stub now.  --Meizawotmeiz 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bug? / Viral Ad?

Not sure if it is a bug with my DVR or if it was done on purpose. Was watching Heroes on 10/23 on the RCN DVR on NBC. I tried to fast forward through the commercial and once it got to the commercial for Deja Vu the movie, it stopped and asked me if I wanted to stop the play back. I hit no and it goes to the beginning of the Deja Vu commercial. Anytime I try to fast forward after that it pops up the same message and when I say no, it goes back to the Deja Vu commercial. Tazzy531 04:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this on your post on the Talk:Heroes (TV series) discussion page, but I'll mention it here too. Perhaps this is caused by the Deja Vu commercial repeating the first couple of seconds. The DVR notices it's playing the exact same material twice so close together, and thinks something is wrong. I dunno, I don't own a DVR, but it's a theory. Applejuicefool 14:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot specifics?

Does anyone know what the plot actually is? The initial logline was, "An FBI agent has the ability to travel back in time and falls in love with a woman as her murder approaches." Now there seem to be differences in the plot summary as follows: "...it is déjà vu that unexpectedly guides ATF agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) through an investigation into a shattering crime. Called in to recover evidence after a bomb sets off a cataclysmic explosion on a New Orleans Ferry, Carlin is about to discover that what most people believe is only in their heads is actually something far more powerful – and will lead him on a mind-bending race to save hundreds of innocent people."

Is this science fiction, paranormal thriller, romance or what? Erik 21:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's science fiction/thriller, basically. Without giving too much away, the woman's murder is related to the terrorist bombing. Pimlottc 15:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

I don't feel like editing this whole whole article but, there are some serious grammatical errors and spelling errors. -DyNo! 10:39 Dec. 25 2006

(I'm new to wiki and I don't know how to sign...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.128.194 (talk • contribs) 23:40, November 25, 2006

Well, it wouldn't take more than a few minutes to correct the errors you've spotted. If you're new, this is the way to learn. :) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 08:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deeper plot mix-up?

quoting the final few sentences:

"Doug 3 and Claire save the ferry, but Doug 3 ends up dying. Claire is then approached on the dock by Doug 1, who knows nothing about anything that has happened."

"The most pressing issue about the end of the movie is that in there are two living Dougs- Doug 1 and Doug 3 (Doug 2 has died). This additional Doug could be addressed in a possible sequel."

shouldn't it read that the two living Dougs are Doug 1 and Doug 2 because, as the author says, Doug 3 dies? maybe i'm not paying attention but i think it's just a little mix-up. Dentontyndale 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I watched the movie. I thought there where only two Dougs. Wasn't the Doug at the end the one that didn't go back in time? Why do you say they're different? — Daniel 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deeper plot (religious, spiritual issues, Greater Conspiracy)

from what i have read so far nobody has pointed out the importance of the supernatural events in the film. it is not coincidence that "divine intervention" is mentioned at least two times. it is no coincidence that there is a dialogue between doug and the bespectacled physicist (?) in which the latter admits that he believes in god and that he would help him.

i saw the film last night and it seemed to me that doug 3 wanted to shoot terrorist perp in his leg (as he lay flat on the ground with the car between terrorist and him). he reconsidered and realised that everything up to that point had resulted in more of the same. just like our scientist friend had pointed out before, changing the past would only work in such a way as to once again reproduce the same event in the future only with a different sequence of events leading up to it. the event was destined to happen. he was caught in the trap of knowing the future with no way of changing it. it is then that he makes the decision to resign himself to god, leaves one bullet in the chamber and comes out to face the terrorist. he repeats the jefferson quote to the terrorist which doug himself must have been reflecting on. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." he realised then that he must make this sacrifice and so he does with the seemingly irrational move to face a killer with two assault rifles to have a chat with him.

i think we have left out a lot if we don't include this religious/spiritual overtone. didn't want to just go ahead and change the page itself without letting you guys know what i think. oh, i have no axe to grind in this matter.

Dentontyndale 15:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any third-party notable sources that take that reading? otherwise it's original research. --Charlesknight 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

no. it's probably OR as you said. i forgot most impotantly to mention the one line which caused me to consider that the writer intended for us to acknowledge divine intervention. i believe doug asks terrorist: "who are you?" or "who sent you?" can't remember which. in any case, he already knows what he needs to know about oerstadt. it would be a pointless question except if he believed that something truly evil were driving/influencing oerstadt's actions. oerstadt of course who believes this wicked act is destined to happen realises that something had intervened and that the action would not go as planned. can anybody confirm for me what it was that doug actually said (who are you? or who sent you?)

Dentontyndale 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

here is a site which alludes to this theme: http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2006/dejavu.html timelines aside, i still think the writer intended for us to consider the spiritual aspect of the film. Dentontyndale 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

--

I would like to see this deeper plot section re-encorporated into the page. I think it helps deliver a much greater description of what the movie is actually about. Hopefully we can get some citations in here so it can return. In the meantime, I wanted to open up the discussion to include a larger conspiracy involving the bomber and the federal government.

At a few points in the film the bomber says something to the effect "this is not how it is supposed to be." This is OR here, but it appears that there is a possibility that the bomber is part of a larger conspiracy involving time travel. This is seemingly underscored by the fbi shutting down the investigation prior to watching the past event of the ferry exploading. Brokenmold 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem with it returning (it was very interesting) but it needs sources otherwise it's OR. --Charlesknight 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Charlesknight. Without reliable citation, this qualifies as original research. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of "Ironic"

I changed the last trivia paragraph to read "Jim Caviezel's character believes he has a divine mission and destiny, which is interesting given his previous role as Jesus Christ. However, in contrast to his previous role, Jim Caviezel's character is willing to sacrifice others but not himself as stated by Washington." The previous version refered to both of these facts as "ironic" which are not. An ironic situation is one that has characteristics or outcomes completely opposite to what was expected of the actions that led to it. That Caviezel's casting as JC has nothing to do with the fact that his character in Deja Vu believes to be on a divine mission. Ironic would be that his role as JC led to his casting as Satan on a different film. 66.75.242.105 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Lucky

[edit] Main universe doesn't exist

From what I can gather, there is the first universe, then the one where Doug's partner is killed that is created when the note is sent back, then the one where the ambulence is crashed, the note is on the fridge, and the terrorist attack is averted that is created when Doug goes back. The guts of the movie take place in a universe where the ambulence is crashed and the note is on the fridge, but the terrorist attack is not averted. When is that universe created. If Doug originally failed to stop the attack, but the people watched from the future and whatever gave Clair paranoia at the beginning changed it enough to make Doug succeed, that would solve the problem somewhat, but the note on the fridge and other clues at Cair's house are made after Clair is saved, yet they find her body in the main universe. The universe is not only not created, but actually can't exist. While I'm at it, how did the laser pointer pointed at the monitor go back in time? He would need to point at the worm hole, which is in a different room. If the worm hole is big enough to send a person through, and light goes through it, how come people can't see it? How come it doesn't destroy everything it goes through? Why don't the either move the wormhole as far apart as it goes and try to destroy it to prevent a feedback loop destroying the worm hole and who knows how much else, or create as many alternate realities as possible so that if they do continue in parallel there is many times as much good? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielLC (talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

It seems that there is at least one timeline we don't see - where Doug went back in time, crashed the ambulance, saved her from Oerstadt, but then something happened, Claire was still murdered and Doug failed. (See IMDB boards for various possibilities). We see the time he gets it right. -- Beardo 08:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

Ok, I went to the cinema to have a good time, but being a physicist made the experience a bit harder. Keeping 'entertainment' as the main goal of the film, I thought it was scientifically serious until they sent a note (matter) to the past. But when Doug gets sent to the past too, then you can expect what? The dark Lord Sauron or Captain Jack Sparrow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.92.70.93 (talk • contribs) 10:59, January 25, 2007 (UTC)

yes, it was all very clear until Denzel uses the laser through a tv screen, could there be a section in the article that could try to explain how would the time travel in this movie was possible, or why it was impossible (with good sources to it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.28.199.39 (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

One possible explanation is that the whole thing was just a film, and was thus entirely made up by the people who wrote it. Of course, that's just my theory - obviously, further experiments need to be carried out... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.242.139.236 (talk) 21:39, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Complete Lie

Has anyone else noticed that, as interesting and decent as the movie was (barring the huge plothole), it didn't actually have anything to do with Deja Vu? Seriously, absolutely nothing in the film corresponds to this phenomena in any way. Based on the trailers, I was expecting some kind of sci-fi/system-of-control style thriller, in which, oh, I don't know... the government periodically wipes people's memories, leaving them with only the vague feeling that this has happened before, or something. Anything! Anything at all that actually tried to explain Deja Vu. But upon watching the film, I discover that not only is the entire theme of the movie completely removed from the title (it's about observing the past, for Cripe's sake!), but that every single line from the previews that seemed to correspond to Deja Vu was taken entirely out of context ("Brace yourself, I think you're about to witness a murder," "Maybe I've already done it," etc.)! Did anyone else have a problem with this? Was this ever a major critique of the film? Because if so it needs to be mentioned in the article. 76.184.12.173 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with the trailers and maybe the title, not the film. — Daniel 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

spoiler : The only moment of deja vu I saw in the film is at the end, after DW's character struggles for a moment while listening to Don't worry, baby on the radio, and after he says, "I'd try." Then he says, "Nah." --Lexein 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC) end spoiler

The whole deja vu of the movie is that he was sent back in time to before the explosion happened, so he was witnessing the planned explosion all over again, with the car, the phone calls, the messages, etc. etc. etc. that he already knew existed due to his viewings of the past through the machine at the military base. 24.15.53.225 03:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why always 4 days and 6 hours ago

Is it from some existing scientific theory? Based on some theory about bending time maybe? Anyone knows why it must be 4 days and 6 hours ago or not? --Mato Rei 13:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the director's commentary on the DVD, the six hours was so that the car chase sequence could take place at two different times: one during rush hour, the other during an otherwise deserted street in the middle of the night. As for the four days, this has no relevance except to provide an interesting scenario and concept to make the film more exciting. Hope that helps! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It does help. Thank you so much. I wonder if it's worthy to be mentioned in trivia? As a plot it has my attention and may lead more people like me to here to find answer. --Mato Rei 03:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H1ghlander

" * The Hummer H1 driven by Denzel Washington in the bridge chase scene is modeled after an actual robot, H1ghlander, entered by Carnegie Mellon University into the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge."

I just had attended a seminar by Dr. Sam Kherat who was a Technical Lead of the Caterpillar team which assisted Carnegie Mellon University "Red Team" who participated in the DARPA Grand Challenge. He told that the Hummer in the movie is an actual H1ghlander rather than a replica of it. I have read about this and challenged him about that and he confirmed it. So does anyone think that article should be changed. But I am yet to find the online reference for the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.193.242.222 (talk • contribs) 20:17, April 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timelines table

The table whit the timelines does a good work making sense of the plot, but I don't think the director had it planned that way. It seems like original research to me. 83.45.225.191 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's true that it's original research - a shame, because it does seem to make a pretty watertight interpretation of the events of the movie. Here's a link just in case anyone wants to take a look without trawling through the article's history: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Deja_Vu_Timeline.GIF David 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queries for IanManka and for all readers/editors

I added some information in TRIVIA, so they can be verified, citing verifiable sources (the cast of the film-it's reliable, isn't it?), that anybody can verify, and I moved the information before the announcement

"Some of the information in this Déjà Vu (film) may not be verified by reliable sources. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified to cite reliable sources."


1. Why you moved back (under)? They are still TRIVIA, I don't think that is a good idea to move in the body like you suggest (because is not very important), but now is certified, so after me, there is not anymore in the action of your announcement and should be placed before it;
2. A frame of the cast of a film can be shown in Wikipedia, or it is also protected by copyright (so, forbidden)? (I mean the final frame of the cast, showing the persons in discussion, for proving with a “reliable source”)
3. I wished to add some more info, but I didn’t know where, and if it is important. That’s the facts that intrigued me:
a. After they identified the killer on the computer, the fat guy had instantly a folder (or a book) in his hands where he found there his name. Here are two facts: 1. I don’t think that is possible to search in an acceptable manner for somebody in all persons in US using printed documents (on papers) to find the file of someone; 2. The documents were in original (see the golden stamp) not in copies! Supposing that they have time to search in papers, they should have an gorgeous amount of papers there, to keep file for every person in US (or … in the world?) and more of that, all in original!!
b. The second fact was that he pointed a laser beam in the monitor, and that goes back in time, knowing that the monitors are only output devices. Supposing that it was not a monitor but anything else, (saying a direct view) it was correct that the beam have gone directly. In that case, why they could not use the light to send a message through the monitor (like using a projector), or throwing that written paper directly trough that “monitor”?
c. Next: if the system was reset by the transportation of the photons’ weight from laser beam and the electricity was down, for transporting the paper they should use much-much more power (he said that he need more power, ok, but how much?), at least billions times more power (that’s at least the rapport between the weights of paper and the photons), God knows how they could have this immense power. Supposing that was ok; but a body? It is again 80kg/8g=10,000 more electricity than for the paper, and that is incredible! If the paper has broken the power of the town, it’s impossible to have 10000 times more power, even for an instant, no matter how the circuits was made! Supposing that the national system could provide globally such amount of energy, the local wires should be melted or blown up or if they are protected the electricity should be cut out before the task being accomplished!
d. For transporting the paper, there was already a device special prepared to hold papers inside of (scanning??) recipient… even if that was the first time they thought at such event! More of that, that special device was removed after? When they open the recipient for sending the guy, that device wasn’t there anymore! It’s nonsense!


Anyway, by me, it’s a film with much less inadvertences that many others! Mihaip 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses:
  1. Well, if trivia is not important, then why should it be in the article? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All claims must be cited so that if any claim is disputed, they can be verified. See also WP:TRIVIA.
  2. As for a screenshot (if that's what you're after), I really don't know -- images are not really my specialty. You might want to consider posting the question at the help desk, or some other source.
  3. Plot discussion can be discussed here, and I agree with what you say. However, one could argue that if they were placed into the article, that it could go against Wikipedia's policy of no original research. However, it is a good starting point to perhaps insert a section entitled "Controversy" or "Criticism," where we could list reliable sources who refuted some of the movie's finer points. Perhaps a Google search can turn up some good sources. I dunno.
Hopefully that answers your question. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindsight?

I just rented this movie and it has some strong similarities to the book "Hindsight" by Peter Wright. In Hindsight, a group of scientists develop a machine that allows them to look into the past. Among other things the machine is used to help solve some crimes, and there are even events in the book very similar to the car chase scene with the portable unit. As far as I've been able to find out there is no reference to Peter Wright's book in the credits for the movie, so I was wondering if anybody knew the relative timing of the the movie and book. Amazon.com states that the book was published February 7, 2005. AmberRobot 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title?

Why is this movie called Déjà Vu? There is only one reference to the feeling at the very end of the movie. All of the ads say something like to change the past you must understand the mystery behind Déjà Vu (maybe i'm imagining things, but i think that is what they say anyway). The mystery behind Déjà Vu is never explained. Should something about why the movie is titled as it is be included in the article?--K1000 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also the key moment when he takes Clair back to her home to clean up, looks at the bloody waste, and realises he's been though that before. -- Beardo 08:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The section above this that mentions lies answered this question already. He was reliving what he had seen through the wormhole machine. The phone calls, the murderer, the plan, he already knew what was going to happen. Usually when you're in a true state of deja vu where you are "living" through something again, you could guess what would happen next. This was the case here, as he watched through the wormhole, now he was actually in the past, living it. 24.15.53.225 03:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Poster

The reason the French poster has the definition of deja vu is becuase in French it literally means "already seen". The usage in France is different then in America, however. In France it is used to mean something of the sort of old fashion, or overdone (i.e. "already seen"). The French definition that is given on the poster is explaining the American usage. THat is, the phenomenon of sensing you have already experienced the situation before.

Not just the American usage - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0-vu -- Beardo 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
In french, "impression de déjà-vu" is used to refer to this phenomenon. "Déjà vu" alone only means "already seen", it never refers to the phenomenon in common usage.
But, the definition given on the poster looked like it was written for simple minds, because it is easy for any french to guess that the title refers to the "impression de déjà vu", specialy after seeing the french trailer that explains that the film refer to the "impression de déjà vu".

[edit] Minuti

"When Carlin is first arriving at the docks for the first time he walks by body bags and a cell phone rings. Carlin goes to answer his phone only to find that it wasn't ringing. It is thought by many that the person in the body bag was Carlin's good friend, Larry Minuti. Everyone kept calling him and he wasn't answering. This would explain why."

The above is OR, and besides Minuti was burned and fed to alligators...

The phone in the body bag is Carlin's phone, because Carlin is in the bag. That's why both phones ring simultaneously, showing us that the 'universes' are in fact not parallel. Carlin's time travel exploits happen within his own time continuum. In other words, he could have met himself. Why is he in the bag? This is the version of events when 'divine intervention' doesn't happen and the bomb goes off anyway (the 'destiny version'), ejecting Carlin's charred body into the water.

[edit] Critics and box office

How did it do ? -- Beardo 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

I just removed a paragraph that states it was "inconsistent" that the ATF agent had already been in the past. That's actually the plot- the only question, really, is -how many times? In other words, the movie makes sense if the viewer assumes, only after watching it, of course, that the agent has kept going back in the past until he "got it right" (with divine intervention). Buy or rent the DVD and watch it again. From the beginning he comes to the dock and there is a body in a body bag with a cell phone ringing- his cell phone. That time 'round it was him in the body bag, and the ship blew. When the villain is questioned the bomber says-"don't you see-it's destiny? No matter how many times you try it will always turn out the same?". There is a hint that when the heroic young woman asks him, after he is shot and they are in the car together-"And what if you don't make it?" That he realizes that is the key- he must die and do so in a way that there is no trace of him- because at that moment, when she is talking to him, there are actually two of him in existence at the same time. It isn't a problem if he doesn't make it, because he's already there - at his office. DrSculerati 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not his cell phone, why would he be calling his own cell phone, its his partner's cell phone. He keeps trying to call his partner away from his vacation. His partner was killed in the original attack, his car is on the ferry and Doug comments on it to the other cops and they tell him that the cars belong to the victims. Grant.alpaugh 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall plot problems

Personally, I find this plot sort of short. I mean, I just read this article and started commenting on the discussion page about ten minutes ago, so I have no idea if it used to be longer than it is now, but if that is the case, then I would say that, whoever deleted the text, should not have done so. Unless it was an extremely long and drawn out plotline that isn't necessary, I don't see any reason to have made it shorter. I say this because now, the plot seems overly short. I mean, I see a lot of questions on this page "why is the movie called deja vu". Well, this could be easily answered in the plot, in about two lines. It's called deja vu because Denzel Washington (I can't recall his character name) was transported into the past to live things he had already seen for himself, projected to him through the wormhole camera device at the military device. He knew what was going to happen next. That's why it's deja vu. It is referred to a second time at the very end of the movie, when he is in the car with his girlfriend, and they have that dialogue with the "I'd try", and he wonders to himself for a second, feeling the sensation of deja vu, until he waves it off with a "nah", concluding the film. This is not mentioned in the plot. If anything, the plot should at least answer why the movie is called what it is, if the title of the movie has any relevance toward its plot whatsoever... 24.15.53.225 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simplest explanation

The simplest explination for the plot problems are that the writers of the movie are idiots. There is no logical explanation for why the message on the fridge, the bloody bandages, the bomb in the girl's Bronco, etc. would exist in the same world as the original terrorist attack other than if the writers of the movie didn't fully comprehend the continuity of time travel. The only way the movie could have proceeded logically from the beginning is if at the conclusion of the movie the girl is still dead and the ferry still blows up with all the people aboard it. The only way for the result to change, ie the ferry and girl are saved, is if those original elements are not there. Grant.alpaugh 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] French Billboard Photo

The link to the photo is now dead so I removed it. If you find the same photo or one that can replace it, please feel free to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.198.44 (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Deja vu ver2.jpg

Image:Deja vu ver2.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 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) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot description is incomplete

The girl was found dead in a pink dress, but she was being held captive by the terrorist wearing jeans and a shirt. This proves that Denzel went back to the past once left her in the house and then went to the dock. The terrorist meanwhile drove to her home and killed and her. That's why she is found dead in the pink dress with the fingers cut off. And that's why Denzel found "u can save her" written on the wall even though she was already dead at the beginning of the movie.

Denzel then goes back to the past again but this time takes her with him in the pink dress again, but this time she is not killed by him.

The above IMO would greatly increase the plot's understanding by the public, which come over here trying to understand this complex plot but finds only a few lines of information. I know the the abose need to be worked on in order to have its quality increased, but still it would do a great favor to the reader. What do you think?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French poster removed

I have removed Image:Deja vu ver2.jpg, the French poster, because generally only 1 Fair use image is allowed per article, especially if they are images that are of the same thing, in this case, posters of the same film. Apparently, this French poster has been added because it contains a definition of the phrase déjà vu in French. However, per Fair use rules, the definition can easily be replicated in text form, and in English, provided it has a reliable source. Also, the Fair use rationale is a generic one, and does not in anyway state why two Fair use posters should be in the same article, nor why this particular one is relevant because of the French definition, and why that info cannot be conveyed by other means. As such, I have placed an IFD tag on the image page.

Btw, the French Wiki article, fr:Déjà Vu, does not have a poster, and so this poster could be transfered there, assuming the French WP allows Fair-use images. If it does not, then perhaps that explains the persistance of IP users re-adding the image here. However, that's not sufficient legal reason to keep two FU images. - BillCJ (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot extended

I extended the description of the plot. This is not original research or my opinion, but rather the true plot of movie. I hope I explained it well enough but if you read it closely, you can tell that this really is the only possible plot for the movie, as evidenced from scenes in the movie. She cannot be found dead in her red dress unless Doug had already tried to rescue her once and failed. If someone doesn't realize how this is a necessary plot detail, then this someone doesn't understand the movie. Please don't delete this new section. Just because something isn't expressly stated in the movie does not mean that it isn't an integral part of the plot.

I have actually gotten approval from Bill Marsilii, the film writer, that my interpretation of the film is correct. He quoted me on blog and I will look for the quote if evidence is needed for these plot details, although I think evidence from the movie is evidence enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonrio (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Key word: "my interpretation". That places what you have written squarely within the bounds of WP's Original Research policy as a synthesis of existing material. Please read the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V policy pages carefully before responding. You will note that blogs are not allowed as sources. If you can find a publised source (internet or print) such as an interview with the author, then that can be used here. At this point, the consesus is to exclude your material at this point. It would be good if you'd remove the material on your own as a gesture of good faith, as I have no desire. Also, please be aware of WP's Three-revert policy, which cand result in temporary or permanent blocks for continual reversions. Thanks for your cooperations on this matter, and I trust we will not need intervention to abide by policies. - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the words "my interpretation", since those words sound like I made up what I wrote from my own opinions. What I meant to say is the way I have written it is correct. I was very careful in how I wrote it to make it clear that this is not my opinion: all aspects of the movie indicate that this is the true plot. If you read through the history of the discussion of this article, many people have already mentioned that the plot description is incomplete and missing important details (see the sections above "Inconsistencies," "Overall plot problems," and "Plot description is incomplete.") Would you be ok with leaving what I have written to allow others to find citations from the directors and writers to prove that this is how it the movie really happened?

At any rate, I certainly believe that there's enough evidence in the movie to prove it without citations. If you want, I could cite actual quotes in the movie. I'm not trying to flood wikipedia with my opinions, I'm only here to make it more accurate and reliable. Many people don't understand this movie and say it has "plot holes" merely because they haven't had the opportunity to read a good description of the somewhat hidden plot that many don't see because they movie doesn't spoon feed them the entire plot like most other hollywood films do. This movie makes it very clear that he traveled back at least twice, although they don't expressly state it. The fact that she is dead in the red dress, as I described, is very clear evidence that he tried once, and failed, and that what we see is his second attempt. If it weren't so, the movie would absolutely make no sense, which is what the already weak plot description here on wikipedia leads the reader to believe. As far as the timeline, the story is the same. All outlined events must have happened in the order I outlined for the movie to make sense. Leaving out any of those details will create a plot hole.

Also, please don't believe that I am hard headed, I am perfectly willing to edit anything I wrote if you can describe to me why it's incorrect. Wildonrio (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added reference to a quote by screenwriter Bill Marsilii

Reference number 2 is to a quote by Bill Marsilii, who wrote the script to Deja Vu along with Terry Rossio. He thanks me for laying out the intricacies of the timeline(s) within the plot for Deja Vu. If you look at my post which he is referencing, you will see how I wrote out exactly what is outlined in the timelines I have posted here in the Deja Vu article at wikipedia. Since i have included a direct quote from the writer, may I please remove the

 This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details.

and

 This section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources.
Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Déjà Vu (film)". See the talk page for details.

from the article? Wildonrio (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added reference to a quote by screenwriter Terry Rossio

Reference number 3 is to a quote by Terry Rossio, who wrote the script to Deja Vu along with Bill Marsilii. I went to his website (wordplayer.com) and asked if he could come read what I have written here at wikipedia and say whether he approves or not. He says "Your interpretation (and chart) are spot on, and you make a compelling case." I added a reference to it, but for some reason wordplayer.com (Terry's website where he said this) doesn't let you link directly to the post. If (using Mozilla) you right click and say "copy the link location" and paste in the URL manually then it will go there. I also removed the Original Research and Synthesis sections from the "More plot details which must be assumed" section, since I added references by both the writers of the movie to show they approve. Wildonrio (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 Wildonrio (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)