Talk:Dark City (1998 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dark City (1998 film) article.
Article policies
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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  • /Archive 1: Dec 2003 - Nov 2006


Contents

[edit] Twist ending?

The article should mention aboyt similarity to a scene in "Reqiem for a Dream" where Jennifer Conelly stands at the molo in a red dress ans the guy looks at her from behind, initially blinded by the sun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.16.132.162 (talk) 23:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in the list of films with a twist ending? I didn't see any twist when I watched it. Does anyone else agree that it should be removed?156.34.211.124 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The twist is that the dark city is, in fact, an island in space. It's more of a surprise if you didn't listen to the voice-over that begins the film.
Atlant 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you supposed to listen to the narration? The people who made the movie put it there for a reason...131.202.129.50 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the narration was added ex-post-facto to help folks who don't like to be mentally challenged by a film. You've seen the statement come-and-go in the article that afficionados often turn down the sound during the opeining narration. (I don't, but I already know all the secrets that the film holds.) But even with the narration, the fact that the dark city is an island in space is not revealed and remains a surprise for the moment when Bumstead and Murdoch break through the wall at "Shell Beach".
Atlant 16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, now that I think about it the movie would have been better if it let the audience think for themselves...the movie would have been full of twists actually.156.34.221.193 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
(Addition) I don't think it would count as a twist ending, that discovery of an island in space happened looong before the events near the end of the film (injection, fighting, rebirth), unless I'm mistaken.156.34.221.193 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing it unless someone can prove that the movie ends around the time the island is revealed. 156.34.217.181 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just how close to the end does it have to occur to satisfy this requirement? 5, 10, 15 minutes? In The Village (film), the movie goes on for about, what, 20 or 30 minutes after the twist is revealed? You are trying to quantify what has so far been a qualitative measure. Do you want there to be separate categories for "Twist Endings", "Twist Middles", "Twists that occur 25-30 Minutes From The Ending"? There does not exist a definitive quantitative measure for when a Plot twist qualifies as a Twist ending. Instead, a twist ending is defined generally has occurring at the end of the film or in proximity to the climax. I'd say the primary climax of the film is definitely the battle between the lead stranger and the hero, but the confrontation at Shell Beach definitely qualifies as a climax. It can be viewed as the beginning of the climactic sequence, or as a climax the builds up to the big one. Considering it is the scene immediately before the climax, I think it falls in this realm. Personally, I'd say it qualifies as a "Twist Ending". But, I'll tell you what. We can all pretty much agree that the whole category that is "Twist Endings" is really a sub-category of that which can be called "Plot Twists". I also see the article for Twist endings is overflowing, but the article for Plot twists is rather anemic. What say we move the bulk of the info from twist endings to plot twists, and replace List of films with a twist ending with List of films with a plot twist? That should make everyone happy, and doesn't get us mired in unmeasurable qualifications. --Reverend Loki 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You do raise some good points. I was only trying to help improve the article, to me it didn't seem like there was a sudden, unexpected conclusion. Please calm down (you look upset in your typing). - 156.34.217.161, 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah, that was more along the lines of philosophical rambling as opposed to exasperated ranting inducing those rhetorical questions (in retrospect, I can see how they can look the same with the verbal inflections removed...) I do appreciate your motives, though. However, I may yet act upon the whole twist ending->plot twist idea yet... --Reverend Loki 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaping plot hole?

I love this movie, but I'm kind of confused. So, one time John woke up in the middle of being injected with memories. So what? The Strangers just fled the scene? Couldn't they just restrain anyone who does this and inject them again? Unless they struggle and escape, but then they would remember struggling and escaping. John just wakes up in a bathtub with no memories at all. How does that make sense? I assumed the reason he was a known serial killer was because someone when the police found him the Strangers would know exactly where he was, but no, he's just a known serial killer because his new memories were going to make him into one. So this means the Strangers took no measures to catch him other than 'guys let's chase him down'. --70.81.114.188 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Although never explicitly stated, I believe it is heavily implied that no Strangers were present at this time. Once the scenario is setup, there is nothing more for the Strangers to do, so hey leave. The doctor then follows along making the injections. So, when he came to, the only one present was Kiefer Sutherland's character, and he wasn't real eager for the Strangers to have that it of info. --Reverend Loki 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ohh, right. That makes sense. --70.81.114.188 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narration

Someone should add a section in the article explaining the controversy over the opening narration. Kwyjibear 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it gone? We used to have such a section, IIRC. Atlant 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It was removed for being weaselly and poorly written. The tendency for Wikipedians to see "controversy" anywhere that something annoys them continues to impress me. Chris Cunningham 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
While I completely agree that too many things on Wikipedia are labeled "controversies" based on the feelings on small groups of fans, generally, if a majority dislikes something, it might be worth noting. If some evidence can be found for it, anyway. As for this specific case, there's currently a commented-out note in the "Plot" section that doesn't use the word "controversy", though it isn't written too well. According to this DVD review, quoting Alex Proyas himself (presumably from the commentary track), the intro was "studio-imposed" and "unnecessary". Since the director's intent was obviously not to have it there, I think that makes it notable enough to be worth putting in the article in some form. I'm going to try adding a revised note in place of the old one. See what you think. Maybe it belongs somewhere other than the "Plot" section, but I think it's ok there for now. --Fru1tbat 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frederik Pohl?

Under the section of similarities to other works, there is no mention of Frederik Pohl's story "The Tunnel Under the World". The screen writers blatantly used his work as the basis of the film, replacing the insightful commentary on commercialism with telekinetic zombie aliens. Ironic.

[edit] Trivia

  • Warner Bros., the film's copyright holder (New Line Cinema, a division of Time Warner, distributed it), objected to the title Dark City early in the film's production. They felt the title would confuse audiences with Mad City, Warner's soon-to-be-released film starring John Travolta and Dustin Hoffman, which they predicted would be a commercial hit. The filmmakers changed the title to Dark World, but Steven Spielberg's production company threatened legal action, feeling the title was too similar to their film The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The title was then changed to Dark Empire, but legal action was again threatened, this time by Lucasfilm, who felt the title was too similar to their own well-known film The Empire Strikes Back, and was an exact match for the Star Wars: Dark Empire comic series that had been published by Dark Horse Comics in 1991-92. However, by the time the film was completed and ready for release, Warner's Mad City had come and gone from theatres, and was not the hit they hoped it would be, and the filmmakers were allowed to use their original title,[1] on the condition that Warner could use the original set of Dark City for The Matrix.[2]

Exported from article for later re-integration. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

There are too many images in the article, especially with insufficient fair use rationale. Each image needs to have a unique fair use rationale, not a generic list. See this from Spider-Man 3 as an example. The image of the morphing buildings can strengthened specifically to support the paragraph about the influence of The Crow, but I'm not sure about the rest. The image of Dr. Schreiber only seems to serve as identification, and WP:FU requires that the rationale be more than that. For example, the appearance of the character, with the scar and the glasses, would be appropriate critical commentary to warrant the image's inclusion. However, there is no direct basis for the image of Mr. Hand threatening Emma and the group of the Strangers. I imagine that there could be more description uncovered about the appearance of the Strangers, but the image of Mr. Hand does not have any critical commentary pointed at it. Lastly, the soundtrack cover does not meet fair use rationale because cover art must receive critical commentary. It does not qualify as critical commentary about the music itself. For example, appropriate cover art to have critical commentary on would be the Rolling Stone magazine with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. I would suggest the removal of all images except the morphing buildings, and when the article is improved in terms of content, we can locate images that suit the content better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose their appropriateness depends on how narrowly you define fair use. The capture of Mr. Hand and Emma illustrates a plot point, and the one of the Strangers does a decent job of displaying an aspect of the film's visual design. The image of Dr. Schreber is more difficult to justify, and perhaps should be removed. However, I don't know if the album cover image needs to be held to the same standards. If the soundtrack had its own article (as many soundtracks do), it would traditionally include the cover art, regardless of whether the imagery was addressed in the article. If the soundtrack gains its own article, I would support the image's removal from this article. Please also the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Restarting non-poll discussion. - EurekaLott 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering that fair use has been more stringent lately, it seems appropriate to provide strong justification for any image. When I start improving an article, I tend to be fairly critical of its content, as if it were about to undergo the FAC process anytime. I'm sure that the images here would sit just fine in the currently B-grade article, but when the time comes, the rationale for non-free images should be sharpened. The issue with using images in the Plot section is that pretty much any image from the film could be used to support any part of the story. Why this image, for example, over one of the main character doing something? What seems best to do is if possible, to find an image from a scene that has been commented upon. The image in the Plot section at Dirty Dancing, in my opinion, is a nice example of this. I'm sure that an image of the Strangers could be justified if we found independent, critical commentary about why they were designed the way they were, and the same would go for Dr. Schreber. As for soundtrack images, you're right, when they have their own articles, the soundtrack image is used for identification. I looked at the discussion you provided, and I'll let that play out; I'm not exceedingly picky about the result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Goyer, David S. Audio commentary, Dark City DVD (1998).
  2. ^ IMDb - Trivia for The Matrix

[edit] "Citation needed"?

Why is a citation needed for something so obvious? I just watched this film and Jeunet's City of lost Children as well as Borges' Lottery in Babylon came straight to my mind. At least for those 'citation needed' marks, i guess they can be removed (I will do so, if nobody objects). 217.85.91.130 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit original research, which is basically providing one's own analysis of the film. The connection needs to be perceived by a reliable source, not an editor, otherwise we would be able to comment on any aspect of a film, whether it is "obvious" or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course. But as in 'Lottery in Babylon' peoples identities are permuted as well as they are in 'Dark City' (as well as in a story by Stanislaw Lem, btw.), a reliable source is not necessary, i think, because this is a fact (anybody can check this by reading those books). No claim is risen, that this has been done intentionally, which would clearly require a reliable source cited. You would not demand a citation for the plot synopsis in the beginning. 217.85.91.189 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC) (same as 217.85.91.130 above)
It's still original research in the sense that a connection is drawn between two subjects where none was previously established by an independent source. Permitting original connections like these has no objective standards -- films could be connected with the merest of examples, such as similar protagonists, similar atmospheres, similar outcomes. Content such as similarities between this film and other films, whether intended or unintended, should be verified by reliable sources, not from the perspectives of editors like you and me. Perhaps an attempt can be undertaken to find a reliable source using the titles of both films in a search engine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big O

The anime Big O has some striking similarities to this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.1 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)