Talk:Donnie Darko/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

References in popular culture

This was removed by User:Crossmr as trivia and was requested to be merged into the article. —Viriditas | Talk 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• The film was parodied on the Australian movie show The Bazura Project in episode 2.06 as part of the episode's opening sequence.
• HORSE the band's song "Kangarooster 4057" on the album R. Borlax Re-Release has a sound clip from the film.
• Sage Francis' album Sickly Business contains several references to Donnie's confession about his dog dying under the porch, as well as a sample from the movie.
• In Ultimate Spider-Man, "cellar door" is the keyword said by Shaw that causes Harry Osborn to forget certain actions, notably anything involving his father's actions as the Green Goblin. It is later revealed that Shaw is really a figment of Harry's mind.
• American rock band Alter Bridge named their first album One Day Remains, after a chapter in The Philosophy of Time Travel.
• In an episode of the British soap opera programme Coronation Street, Sarah Platt referred to her brother as "Donnie Darko" upon seeing him sat depressed and playing loud music in his car.
• Rapper MC Lars parodies the embracing of the film by Brooklyn hipsters in his song "Hipster Girl", with the refrain "Donnie Darko makes no sense!"
• Canadian hardcore/metal band Dead and Divine used a quote from Donnie Darko at the beginning of their song Painting With Knives and Gunshots.
• American post-Hardcore band A Day To Remember uses a soundbyte of Frank in the beginning of their album And Their Name Was Treason
• American mathcore band Ed Gein use quotes from the movie on songs from their album It's a Shame a Family Can Be Torn Apart by Something as Simple as a Pack of Wild Dogs
• An indie rock band, Theset named their debut album The Philosophy of Time Travel after the fictional book from the film. Also, many of their lyrics reference the movie.
• In Clerks 2 there is a extended version of the car ride back from the go-karts in which Randal tries to convince Dante that he could have inpregnated his mother when Dante masterbated in the women's restroom. Dante responds by calling the logic a sick, Donnie Darko fantasy world. Director Kevin Smith did the commentary with Richard Kelly on the directors cut of the Donnie Darko.
• Post-rock band 65daysofstatic use a voice sample from Donnie Darko at the end of their song 'Uplifting Chart Trance'.
• Also sir, the group God Module samples Frank and the therapist in their song Darkness Is... from the album Viscera.--Mutlee (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And this section on the director's cut's differences, too. --Nemo bis (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

australian metal core band i killed the prom queen used quotes from this movie in two songs, 666 and never never land —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.29.83 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot out of order?

Is it just me, or is the plot synopsis incorrect? Wasn't seeing the ripples of time after the burning? Farslayer (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, imo how can he travel back in time with the girl and the bike (hence water+metal=host and bike?) at the same time as when the plane's engine falls from the sky enters the wormhole and then the plane exits the wormhole and lands. Not only must he be living in an alternate reality but also be able to time travel. Wouldn't he be at two places at the same time? For instance the plane his parents are in leave Oct. 2nd in the past enter a wormhole of Oct. 31st in the future and come back to the 2nd in the past making the trip 11 days and 6 Hrs. We can also say the engine acted as the transportation device and not the plane. There is no explanation of how Donnie Darko managed to alter reality without explaining two alternative realities. Even Quantum mechanics doesnt allow that to happen. So from what I understood, this darko character has god-like powers.--69.255.16.162 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the real person that the fictious "Donnie Darko" is based upon. Please read my web site http://therealdonniedarko.com where you will read of the copyright infringement lawsuit and find out the TRUTH of what the film is REALLY about. Leonardhill (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

a serious problem with the plot, is this. when donnie decides to not leave his room to follow the voice of frank, in an attempt to kill himself, allowing gretchen to live and what not, he then in theory dies, so he couldnt be told by frank to burn down Jim Cunninghams house, exposing the kiddie porn, that causes Mrs. Farmer to have to leave to appeal for his court case, and making donnies mother take sparkle motion to the competition, and when donnies mother and samantha come home early and experience turbulance, losing the jet engine and killing donnie. so by donnie laying down submitting himself to death, he doesnt cause that chain of actions to be caused, so the jet engine in theory wouldnt fall into the loop hole and down through his roof

There are many things that can be taken in at the moment of Donnie's death. For one, just because the mother and daughter did not get on the plane does not mean that the plane does not exist, it just means that they are not on it. Donnie lays down after seeing what he can do to save everyone and the following happens. By committing this form of suicide he is changing what the future may have held and nothing, like the fire and flooding, happens because he is dying for the others in his life, "They are in great danger." Jim Cunningham (Kiddie porn man) wakes from a horrible dream and is overcome with a profound remorse for the regretful actions buried within his heart. (Spectulation that the sentence ends with heart.) All the others seem to wake from a dream and all are upset, except for the chinese girl who seems to be happy. Frank feels for his eye and we all figured why he did. Gretchen seems to recognize the mother as does Mom. ~Nakoma

We never see where the plane is so we cannot assume that it is going through that same field because we see the engine going into the wormhole, Tangent Vortex, that is funneling into his house. In a panaramic sort of shot, Donnie on the hood, we can see that it is possible for them to be above the entrance of the wormhole because the energy is flowing towards his home and not in the true center of the circling clouds, but that also is speculation. But if you pay very close attention most of the energy is above the funnel that leads to the house. Clouds have a natural moisture so that may be the water and the jet engine is the metal? The plane never enters the wormhole and lands, no one knows why the engine lands because no one can find the plane, it never entered. ~Nakoma

As such, it can be assumed the the plane flew close to the wormhole, if not into it, and this caused the engine to enter the wormhole.

Person with the IP address of 69.255.16.162, the alternative realities is explained, albeit briefly and subtly. A large portion of it is to be filled in by the viewer.

By even listening to Frank in the first place, getting out of bed, etc., he had corrupted the flow of time, and thus begins the alternative reality. You could pretend that the original reality (in which Donnie dies) has been paused. The events of the second alternative reality, make up the events of the majority of the film. Frank, who is widely considered to be a human form of God, or at least someone like God who controls time, tells Donnie to do such and such, beginning to repair the flow of time and let events happen in true chronological order. The jet engine, i.e. the Artifact, is sent through the wormhole as the last stroke to repair the flow of time, but it would only be repaired if Donnie had enough love, and not fear of dying, to actually get back in bed to be killed by the engine. There goes another major theme - fear and love. Farslayer (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the Cast and Crew of the Movie would have to spend years constructing mathematical models to answer all your objections to the Physics questions. Besides, remember the Date involved; Halloween. This gives a supernatural element to the Movie. The Laws of phyics dictate 'instantaneous travel' from A to B is impossible in Natural Physics, but not in the Realm of Supernatural.Johnwrd (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The date didn't have anything to do with the time travel. In the movie itself Donnie's science teacher says something to the effect that you can, in fact, travel from one point to another if you go through a wormhole. 98.19.56.78 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've a curious question, then. If Frank's goal is to 'close off' the tangent universe so the primary one won't collapse, why does he call Donnie out of his bed in the first place? In a sense, isn't his interaction the entire cause of the tangent universe? Its indeed like an ontological paradox; Frank calls Donnie out of his home, causing him not to die as he would've in the primary universe. Ultimately, it seems, Frank has Donnie accomplish nothing but mindless destruction that's never going to exist in the primary dimension, unless we're to assume Frank didn't want Donnie to kill himself, in which case he could very much be considered an antagonist, since if I read correctly, unless Donnie dies, the universe is going to collapse, which kind of makes all the burning and flooding a bit moot on the scale of a collapsing existence. But Frank (Who I'm assuming is one of the manipulated dead in this case) is supposedly trying to push him to his goal along with the manipulated living to make things proper by closing off the tangent universe, which is (Do correct me if I'm wrong) accomplished when Donnie stays in bed and waits to die. Had Frank chosen not to call him, then he would've stayed in bed anyway and would've died; I can't think of any action he needed to complete in the temporal universe, nor any one that had a relevant affect (sure the people had their nightmares, but universes don't collapse just so people can have bad dreams. So it comes down to this: Frank sends Donnie on a "It's a wonderful life"-esque goosechase so when he dies, he gets to choose that it happened. As a tangent to this comment, could that almost make Frank a sort of benevolent force; not very fair when a jet engine that doesnt logically exist kills you in your sleep -- maybe Frank just wanted to give him the chance to accept his fate, in which case wouldn't he be almost akin to an angel or something?--173.51.88.200 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I was wondering is it important that the synopsis reveals facts in the same order that they were revealed in the film ? For example the plot summary written here describes Donnie's visions as hallucinations which is how they were presented in the beginning of the film, but by the end of the film we know that they were if fact not. This makes the plot summary somewhat contradictory. Could it be changed to 'apparent hallucinations'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.39.94 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is a mess and a half-baked set of spoilers- it mentions both Elizabeth and Jim Cunningham without explanation of who they are or how they relate to Donnie, and Frank's touching his eye is meaningless without saying that Donnie shoots him in the eye, but that would be a spoiler. Needs tidying up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.130 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to help tidy up, though you might want to read Wikipedia's guideline on spoilers first. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, having a go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.130 (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's certainly an improvement. You might want to create an account, as there's a history of vandalism from the IP address you're editing from, and you don't want to get caught in a block that was meant for someone else. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. This is me. Oinky (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why No Love for Second Sequel?

Resolved

I posted an addition describing the most recent sequel to Donnie Darko, 2010's gripping psychological thriller Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), but it was removed.

"A 2010 sequel, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), focuses on Donnie's continued adventures in mentally projected alternate universes, and deals with reoccurring themes of time travel, power, burgeoning adolescence, and deep, thoughtful facial expressions."

The same thing happened when I tried to add Donnie's surreal cowboy love story.

I really think we need to pay more attention to Donnie's continued adventures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.119.118 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha I see where you're going... And I hadn't even realised it was the same guy. Unfortunately Wikipedia articles really aren't the place for this kind of humour – this is a stodgy place that people come to for information. On the other hand, Uncyclopedia is a place where your comedic efforts and dry style would be welcome (the actual website, not our article on it). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Frank and Elizabeth

How was it established that he is her boyfriend? All I could get out of their relationship was that he was a friend who went to get more beer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.165.163 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I confirm. I watched the movie multiple times and I also can't say where this comes from. 10:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.155.125.2 (talk)

From the theatrical edit, you really *can't* tell they're a couple. I haven't seen the Director's Cut yet, but from what I've read about it, *that's* where the Elizabeth/Frank relationship is made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.58.226 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

During the family dinner scene (suck a fuck) the name of her friend is mentioned as Frank. When she arrives home before the engine crashes into the house for the first time in the movie, she disembarks out of a yellow camaro? Also interesting in my opinion: After Donnie messed up the school (this was only training his abilities with water and metal) you see the sentence "They made me do it" on the yard. This was written by Frank, so he states that he is manipulated (dead). You can proof this by comparing the style of the letters with the note on the refrigerator "Frank was here for a beer" during the halloween party after Donnie had sex with Gretchen and follows his tube to the kitchen. --Animiertes Fleisch (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

awakened dead in the last scene

In the last scene of the movie, it shows a chapter exerpt from the philosophy of time travel, in chapter 12: dreams... "When the manipulated awaken from their journey into the tangent universe, they are often haunted by the experience in their dreams."

after that, it shows many key characters waking, presumably from nightmares. i took this as an implication that those characters, including donnie's therapist, his teacher, and frank, are the manipulated dead... but there's almost no mention of their stirring in the article. can someone change this? Krispykorn (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

they're the manipulated living 76.118.30.59 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

They are. Only Frank (the bunny form, that is) and Gretchen are the Manipulated Dead. The other characters are the Manipulated Living. Farslayer (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No Frank (bunny form) is manipulated dead. Frank, Elizabeth's boyfriend is the manipulated living. Frank is in both manipulated dead and manipulated living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.194.184 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sequel reviews

I've changed 'mostly negative' to 'entirely'. I don't know of any non-awful reviews for the sequel, the sources used are entirely composed of terrible reviews. 92.8.54.230 (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of my post without an explanation

Who removed my post about the Gylenhaal siblings playing the Darko siblings? Not everyone knows they're real siblings. How many movies can you name that have siblings played by real siblings? It's a pretty unique occurence and therefore should be in the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If a reliable secondary source has covered the topic, then add it back in. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you can find a reliable source that says they each have two arms and two legs, buy all means add that too. Don't say anything about the sky being blue, though, because that would be original research and some Asperger's riddled editor will take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.105 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is true, and easily verified. However not unique, but worthy of mention, I agree. 194.72.35.70 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Andy, Sheffield, England

What about imdb? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0350454/bio Should be reliable enough? 81.224.203.161 (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Surrealist/Existentialist/Avant-Garde film

Any claim that this film is Surrealist, Existentialist, or Avant-Garde needs to be backed up by sources, and for these kinds of claims, it should be a very good source. Until then, do not restore those categories. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

1988

Why is it set in 1988? Seems like it would of been smarter to just leave the year unspecified having it set in 1988 just results in plot holes like the year songs came out Overall the year doesnt seem that important to the film or am I wrong? 83.141.95.46 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While 1988 isn't important to the film, I assume the director liked this year a significant amount enough for him to use it as the date that the film took place? Also the only song issue that I'm aware of was for the theatrical release with The Pantera song after the party. --DeviateRogue (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a film is set in 1988 doesn't mean it can't have songs from later than then, the songs aren't 'in' the film in that the characters aren't assumed to be able to hear it so it doesn't result in plot holes. The 2001 a space odyssey intro with the monkeys has music that isn't written for millenia after the scene is set but that isn't considered a plot hole... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.109.241 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I propose that the List of Donnie Darko characters be merged here. As with other "list of (random movie) characters" articles, this one has little in the way of encyclopedic information. Most of these characters are minor, and the details provided are POV, in-universe, obscure, interpretation, and speculation. Once you remove all of that, and rewrite this so that it is legible, there is very little remaining, and certainly not enough to justify a separate article. Anything that is encyclopedic could easily be merged into the main film article where it belongs. A separate article is just a target for fanboy speculation. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Having received no response in nearly a month, I redirected the list article. There was no content worth merging. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"...killing all within both the plane and the house."

The article says: "Judging from the missing engine, which falls into the Donnie's house of the primary universe, it can be assumed the red eye flight which Rose and Samantha are on would fall into Donnie's house in the tangent universe, killing all within both the plane and the house."

I suspect that the person who wrote this didn't really watch the movie. Why would everyone in the house die? 195.49.248.147 (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he means Donnie in the house in the PU, and definitely harms to his mother and sister on the jet in the TU, therefore, if he didn't leave his bed, stayed there and died, he would have never met Gretchen, and she would have never died (at least because of him), he would have never shot Frank (and he would have never died either), his mother and his sister would have never been on the airplane from the first place, and even if they would, the time tunnel would never appear and the engine would have never been dispatched from the plane, since he is already dead and no longer sends it to the PU. I.E. his death solves all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.252.51 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Once the engine's through the wormhole, the Tangent Universe collapses. Nobody there dies, they just no longer exist. If he survived, he probably wouldn't meet Gretchen (at least date her) in the Primary Universe. There's no Frank or school-flooding power or Manipulated in this Universe. Donnie's just nobody here and his life would be nothing like those 28 Tangent days. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen this in forever - in the end no one dies... But at that exact instant the only person killed would be Donnie as his family are still in the future aren't they? and not in the current time frame in a damaged airplane.
Furthur to this, wouldn't the engine only kill donnie in a single frame of time ? Technically speaking, wouldn't Donnie survive? You guys are smarter than me when it comes to this but ...
Instance 1 - Donnie wakes up, survives, the wormhole appears, the airplane passes through, engine goes back in time
Instance 2 - Donnie wakes up, Donnie dies from engine, wormhole closed, plane cannot timetravel, negating death by engine
Instance 3 - Donnie now wakes up, doesnt get killed by the engine because the wormhole don't exist.
Instance 4 - Instance does not exist because the wormhole does not exist to make a repeat possible.

• I think in this case we could safely assume that in the majority of timeframes Donnie would survive unscathed.

There is no wormhole in the Primary Universe. This isn't a time loop. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If the wormhole was recreated by Donnie surviving, a perpetual loop would again exist: Instance 1 - The wormhole appears, the airplane passes through, engine goes back in time, kills Donnie, closes wormhole
Instance 2 - Donnie wakes up, doesnt get killed by the engine because the wormholes don't exist, but causes a wormhole
Instance 3 - The wormhole appears, the airplane passes through, engine goes back in time, kills Donnie, killing the wormhole
Instance 4 - Donnie wakes up, doesnt get killed by the engine because the wormholes don't exist, but causes a wormhole

• I think in this case the error would persist and the issue would not be negated. This one seems very unlikely to me as it seems to be reliant on Donnie's survival being the catalyst for the wormhole.

Just some random thoughts. I know this section isn't for discussion of the movie or theories there-in, but it might be worth noting in advance if Donnie actually survives because of it. KermEd (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The wormhole (and all of its related tasks) only occur in the Tangent Universe. Once the engine is sent back in time, everything "magical" no longer exists. It's like waking from a profound dream. Donnie has no significance to the Primary Universe. The Tangent Universe (presumably) only existed to put Donnie's soul at rest before he dies "alone". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The plot

The plot line revolves around the fact that the engine of the airplane creates a new dimension and if the engine is not returned to the "normal" dimension within a specified time period the world will end. When an event such as this happens someone becomes the superheroe charged with returning said artifact and in this film this person is obviously Donnie Darko. Anyone else who dies in the alternate dimension can set a trap in order to make sure that this happens. Frank the bunny died, as did Gretchen. Here is the trap:

The only thing that would make Donny return the jet engine to the correct dimension is the death of Gretchen. Frank engineers the meeting between Donnie and Gretchen by enticing him to flood the school thus creating the scenario where Donny meets Gretchen the next day and walks her home. Then Frank entices him to burn down the paedofile's house. So the "I seriously doubt your commitment to Sparko motion" teacher can't go with the group to their performance. Donnie's mother goes (since his father is not around for a reason I can't remember), this enables Donny and his sister to throw a party where of course Gretchen and Frank die.

Hence the trap is set. Donnie successfully returns the engine to the correct dimension and the world is saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.100.59 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is a good theory, except Donnie doesn't have anything to do with the engine's removal from his house, nor its whereabouts thereafter. "Mommy, mommy, can I keep the jet engine that would've killed me if I hadn't been sleepwalking?" "I don't know, son, a jet engine is an awful lot of responsibility." -- but I digress, if the jet engine is indeed to artifact (which it most likely is), the government (or airport company, I forget)takes it and Donnie doesn't see it again until it falls off the plane. He has no control over what happens to it, so although your hypothesis of the manipulated dead's actions are sound, your current explanation for their motivation can't work ipso facto.--173.51.88.200 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Manipulated Living are compelled to help the Living Receiver return the Artifact. The FAA is Manipulated Living. Besides, the engine is a copy. That fact is what makes the Universe unstable. He actually sends the other copy (on the plane) through to the Primary Universe. Either works. Balance is restored and the Tangent Universe safely collapses. 201's theory is pretty valid. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To get a clue of the Plot remember the Movie Theatre Donnie took his girlfriend to? One of the Movies was 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. In that Movie the fictionalised character of Jesus realised the Devil had tricked him with an choice of life that had created an alternative world. Only by going back and dieing could the character of Jesus set the Cosmos right.Johnwrd (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ending

From the latest revision of this article: The storm causes an engine to fall off before Donnie transports it back in time to 28 days earlier using a wormhole. [/] But in an alternate scene, Donnie chooses to stay in bed.

Are there really two alternative endings? I don't think so. I know about the director's cut, but (at least from the other reviews on the Internet) he didn't attempt to change the ending. In fact there are no other endings but the one that it's referred here as "an alternate scene".

Pardon my ignorance, if I'm wrong. --Smihael (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The only "alternate" ending shows him impaled by a beam, where before the details were left to the imagination. No plot difference. Also, the storm doesn't cause the engine to break off; Donnie's telekinesis does. The rain enables a Fourth Dimensional Construct ("wormhole"). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Heard on the radio that there maybe a remake of this film. I don't think you can make a remake unless the story was changed or extended

after the characters sister. The made a lot of money and followers.--23.19.172.85 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy of Time Travel should be explained in the plot section.

This plot section is more confusing without the explanation than it would be with it. The Tangent Universe concept is crucial to understanding. The reader should know what Roberta Sparrow knows. But since I don't want to type that much with a PS3 controller, you do it! Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This may help. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That kind of content would not be appropriate for the plot. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That kind of content is the plot. Everything that everyone says or does in the film is with the unconscious intention to assist the Living Receiver in returning the Artifact and saving the Primary Universe. Donnie doesn't have elemental powers because he was bitten by a funky junebug. Frank wasn't created by Mutagen, and he doesn't time travel via DeLorean. It's all because this is a Tangent Universe and the rules are quite different here. The entire story is the result of God repairing itself after a glitch (or allowing Donnie to love, not fear, his imminent death). Either way, it should be made clear this is not occurring in the "real world" (not even movie real world). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All of that information is external to the plot. All the plot can say, in brief, is what happened in the film, not any external description of the how and why. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the first things that happens in the film is a Tangent Universe occurs and a Manipulated Dead rabbit from the future saves the Receiver's life. This is explained in pages from the book (itself a key part of the plot), which are included in the Director's Cut. Not external. At the very least, we should include the basic info about Tangent Universes given in the primary source. Anything that could be seen as synthesis could easily be backed up with a secondary source. Paragraph 2 of WP:FILMPLOT seems to exist for unconventional structures and complicated plots such as this. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added (and re-added) a subsection, based on information in the film. I went out of my way to not create synthetic points, just saying what the book does (paraphrased, for copyright). The last paragraph is a slight interpretation, but clearly sourced (just to support the paragraph, not the whole section; that's all from the primary source). Don't delete it again without a valid reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot quote a fictional book as a source, that is absurd. See this discussion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

See the part where I said this information is in the film. No secondary sources or original research necessary. We're allowed to use the film as a source for plot information. I used an existing External Link to replace the fansite one. A bit better, yeah? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What the book says is not the plot of the film. Interpretations of the film go somewhere else. The plot section just says what happens in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation, just a paraphrasing. All these words are (in other words) on the screen, in plain text. It's more of an interpretation to translate the moving pictures that the main plot section is based upon. And the things described in this book do happen in the film. This isn't like I'm saying Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is about Satanism. Text on a TV screen should be treated equally to text in an actual book, or spoken words on a tape, no? Primary source stuff. It can be used to interpret the rest of the film, but is not an interpretation in itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The plot summary should just say what happens in the film -- the on-screen events, not an explanation of the events and what they mean. This philosophy stuff is an interpretation, so it doesn't belong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone object to having it outside of the Plot section? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There might be objections. Original research is out of bounds, as I'm sure you appreciate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Though it wouldn't need any. Like I said, these words are in the film, as sure as the cast list or jet engine is. Just a paraphrase, like we had. It can't say Frank told Donnie to burn down Cunningham's house as part of the Ensurance Trap, but it can explain the concept of an Ensurance Trap and say that the Living Receiver can conjure fire. I do appreciate the OR rule, very much. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I object to its presence anywhere in the article. You cannot use a work of fiction to explain another work of fiction. I do not see how this can be justified with any policy or guideline we have. If a reputable third-party source had discussed this, that would be a different story. But, what Inedible wants to add, as has been asserted again and again, is completely in-universe. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the same work of fiction. The text describing the Tangent Universe is part of the movie, just as the words the characters speak and the actions they do are. It's justified by WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PASI, as I've explained in detail to you. Is this review reputable enough for you? If not, there are many others. Anyway, thank you to Masem for integrating it into the plot section. Makes much more sense now. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not the same work of fiction. That is an interpretation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is using the Star Wars opening crawl to describe the story of Star Wars also an interpretation? If not, what's the difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what you are undoing; while I know that the previous changes InedibleHulk don't have consensus, recent reverts are removing content that I added. Specifically, this morning, I rewrote the plot to trim it down, clear up some of the confusion that was cited at the WT:FILM discussion, and specifically source out the telekinesis thing because it is not clear at all in the movie period ([1]) I note that the Salon article, while mostly interpretation by the author, states clear as day that the DVD commentary by Kelly spells out that Donnie used telekinesis to pull off the engine, so the source is needed but its not interpretating anything but stating the claim of the director.
The other factor to consider is that while I completely agree with consensus that the whole of the book does not need to be included, the film makes zero sense without discussing the thesis of the book which ties up the entire plot, otherwise, it is completely non-sensical. I don't think we need to go any deeper than to understand than what I added (two sentences) and thats it. This first removal [2], while it follows a number of edits from IH, is basically erasing what I had, which does not at all make anything interpretative outside of the telekinesis claim which is sourced. (As IH notes, the book is available as part of the primary source, so understand its theory of time travel is non-interpretive) --MASEM (t) 03:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary from Salon

(Copyvio cut-and-paste from Salon cut. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC) )

Aren't there copyright issues with a cut and paste like this? And what's the point of it? Anyway, please remember to sign your comments. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not conceal the evidence. The link is here for those who want to read Salon's summary of the plot. http://www.salon.com/2004/07/23/darko/ --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unintelligible

I now find the plot even less intelligible than it was before. I also find it very hard to believe that a casual reader who has seen only the original version of the film, and not the expanded director's cut, will find this summary very helpful in understanding the plot. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is unintelligible about it? Secondly, we can include details from the director's cut or commentary, as long as we source back to where they came from, given the presumption that the rest of the plot is identifiable from the main primary source (the theatrical release). This movie is specifically a case where the added details of the DVD commentary are necessary, otherwise, why does the world end in 28 days + change? Why is it a wormhole? If you don't discuss anything about the book, these details are seemingly random and make no sense. That's why inclusion of the basic premise (not a full section) about the book is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The DVD commentary is not part of the plot. An explanation of the plot is not part of the plot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning that Donnie receives a book without explaining what the book is about (though its pages are clearly visible) is a huge disservice to the plot. Don't think of it as an explanation, just a description of an object, like saying Frank looks like a humanoid rabbit or there is a "strange dark cloud" (which wouldn't seem so strange if we'd described what's in the book.) InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

When there is massive ambiguity in the plot, and the creator of the work has gone to lengths to set the record straight as to what's actually happened, then it's completely fair to include as long as we're sourcing where this additional information came from. Remember, our purpose is to include a plot summary as to make the rest of the article understandable, which means that the plot itself should include any other details that we can source that helps to explain the work and why we allowed to take liberties to describe the film in an out-of-universe fashion (eg, in the case of Memento, we purposely explain the film's structure to make the plot easier to disseminate). --MASEM (t) 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not in the plot summary. Reading the Salon summary, it's obvious that material is added to the plot section that goes beyond the on-screen events depicted in the film. If the Memento plot summary is defective, perhaps that can be addressed. In any event, explanation and interpretations belong somewhere else. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually in the plot summary. This is why we write plot summaries in out-of-universe format, as an informed viewer, not as someone watching the film for the first time. The whole explanation of the Tangent Universe and facets thereof is necessary to make the film make sense from the out-of-universe perspective. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that interpretations should be left out of the plot and left for a separate section, but explanations that provide clarity to the fundamental plot are necessary, though we don't need long-winded explanations, just enough to establish enough to help explain the plot. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No explanations. We just give the on-screen events of the film. That's all that is necessary, required or allowed for that section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One event is Donnie receiving the book. Several more involve him obsessing over its words. Seven events are the appearances of the book's pages. Another is going to Sparrow's house because the book suggested he do it. A major one is his returning the Artifact and collapsing the Tangent Universe (not turning back time, as the article now falsely claims). The dad goes to New York, and the mom and sister to LA. I'm probably forgetting a deletion or two. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The summary right now includes Donnie getting the book. The summary doesn't say he turns back time. Looking at the Salon plot summary, there is no mention of Artifact or Tangent Universe. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody says (or implies) he turned backed time, except you when you add "The previous 28 days run in reverse". The book has time travel in its title, but it's not really about it. And again, your Salon article isn't the sole authority on the plot. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We avoid in-universe plot summaries as you are describing (per WP:WAF). The appropriate out-of-universe summary needs to reference the additional primary material that is connected with the film. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This pretty much nails it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not so much. There definitely should be a section in the article about this additional material. But for the plot summary, anything from outside the film doesn't belong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in IllaZilla's version below that you believe is from outside the film? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I see others have been banging away at the article's plot summary. I hadn't watched the film in years, so I threw it in and cranked out this 620-word version for consideration. It's based on the director's cut, so there may be differences from the theatrical version (which I've never seen). Feel free to use it, not use it, or modify it as you like:

Extended content

On the night of October 2, 1988, troubled teenager Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) is awakened and led outside by a vision of a figure in a monstrous rabbit costume, who tells him the world will end in 28 days. He awakens on a golf course and returns home to find that a jet engine of mysterious origin crashed through his bedroom during the night. Donnie tells his psychotherapist Dr. Thurman (Katharine Ross) about his continuing visions of "Frank", the figure in the rabbit costume. Acting under Frank's influence, he floods his school by damaging a water main. He also begins dating new student Gretchen Ross (Jena Malone), who has moved to town with her mother under a new identity to escape her violent stepfather. Conservative gym teacher Kitty Farmer (Beth Grant) blames the flooding on the influence of the short story "The Destructors", assigned by English teacher Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore), and begins teaching attitude lessons taken from motivational speaker Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze). Donnie rebels against these lessons, leading to friction between Kitty and Donnie's mother Rose (Mary McDonnell). Donnie asks his science teacher Dr. Monnitoff (Noah Wyle) about time travel after Frank brings up the topic, and is given the book The Philosophy of Time Travel written by Roberta Sparrow (Patience Cleveland), a former science teacher at the school who is now a seemingly senile old woman. The book tells of a disruption in time creating an unstable "tangent universe" which will destroy all existence within a few weeks unless a "living receiver" possessing superhuman powers can guide a metal "artifact" back through a portal to the "primary universe". Donnie begins seeing channels of water projecting out from himself and others, which lead him to find his father's handgun. He interprets these as indicators of fate or the will of God. Dr. Thurman tells Donnie's parents that he is detached from reality, and that his visions of Frank are hallucinations symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia. Donnie disrupts a speech being given by Jim Cunningham by insulting him in front of the student body, then burns down Cunningham's house on instructions from Frank. When police find evidence of a child pornography operation in the house's remains, Cunningham is arrested. During a hypnotherapy session Donnie confesses his crimes to Dr. Thurman and says that Frank will soon kill someone. With their parents and younger sister Samantha (Daveigh Chase) out of town, Donnie and his older sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) throw a Halloween party to celebrate Elizabeth's acceptance to Harvard University. Gretchen arrives, distraught that her mother has disappeared. Realizing that only hours remain until Frank's prophesied end of the world, Donnie takes Gretchen and two friends to find Roberta Sparrow. They are attacked by two school bullies (Alex Greenwald and Seth Rogen) who are attempting to rob Roberta's house, and the fight spills into the street. An oncoming car swerves to avoid Roberta but runs over Gretchen, killing her. The driver is Elizabeth's boyfriend Frank (James Duval), wearing the same rabbit costume as the Frank of Donnie's visions. Donnie shoots him using his father's gun. Seeing a portal forming above his house, Donnie drives into the hills and watches as an airplane carrying Rose and Samantha descends over the area. The plane is wrenched violently as one of its engines detaches and falls through the portal. The events of the previous 28 days are shown quickly in reverse, and Donnie finds himself in bed on the night of October 2. The jet engine crashes through his room, killing him. Others with whom Donnie interacted during the month of October are awakened by haunting dreams. Gretchen rides by Donnie's house and learns of his death, but says she did not know him.

--IllaZilla (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty good. I think the connection between Cunningham's arrest, Kitty's defense of him and Rose's trip to LA could use a mention. InedibleHulk (talk)

Middlesex, Virginia

Does anyone remember if this setting is mentioned in the film? I want to add it, but can't remember if I saw it or read it somewhere else. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to see if the location was mentioned when I re-watched the film yesterday, but didn't see it come up. This source, though, clearly says Middlesex VA (and is a great source for discussing the film's cult appeal, as well). And here's a source comparing the theatrical version to the director's cut. Wow, this is all getting me way into a movie that I'd only seen once up until yesterday. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of those films. I've seen it five times over the years, and it's still interesting. I feel like watching it again, after all this fuss. Back on topic, though, would it be appropriate to add the setting with a citation or without? Part of me thinks it needs it, a smaller part thinks a citation in a plot section without them would stand out like a sore thumb. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to add without a citation. Technically citations are only required for "information that's challenged or likely to be challenged", which this probably isn't. If challenged, a note could be added pointing to a source. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct to say "The 28 days run in reverse" or "Scenes from the 28 days run in reverse".

As I've explained in recent edit summarys, saying the days run backward means time goes backward, which is one way to interpret this scene. Saying the scenes from those days run backward is a straightforward observation, and readers can interpret it as they wish (time moving backward, life flashing before Donnie's eyes before he dies, the Tangent Universe unravelling). As the editor insisting on "days moving backwards" has been adamant in recent discussion that the plot summary contain no interpration based on the primary source POTT, I'm perplexed as to why he should want to include an interpration based on some other source. He asks "Propose a third way?", though it would be a fourth way since he wasn't content with the original (not my words) "The events...are shown..." either. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no difference in meaning, unless there's something else besides the scenes that could run in reverse. Since it's a movie, made of scenes, that depicts time, made of days, there's no difference in meaning. Either way it might imply that time is running back. But then we end up on Oct 2, right? And we say that in the summary because it's in the movie. Reference to the movie's "scenes" is the wrong point of view, since we tell the story in the plot summary from inside the film. In other words, we don't say "The first scene is about someone named Donnie Darko who wakes up", we say "Donnie Darko wakes up". We don't say, "we see a picture of a cloud above", we say, "clouds form above". So, we don't refer to the fact that it's a film by saying, "the scenes run backward." Instead, we continue to stay inside the film and say what is in the film: "the days run backward." --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, saying the scenes run backward could imply a reversal of time, but saying days run backwards states it. It is not clear in this scene if this is something we're seeing through Donnie's eyes, is "actually" happening or is just a film device to recap the events for the viewer (like at the end of Saw movies) or what it means. Scene doesn't always necessarily mean "movie scene". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it to you to correct it. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's correct already. InedibleHulk (talk)

If you have another alternative that doesn't imply time going backward and stays inside the film, please offer it. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re-read the reasons I have bolded for convenience above. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So is there any word you'd find more acceptable than "scenes"? Or are you adamant about including this interpretation? I'm willing to compromise, if it's a decent one. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming hypocritical. If we're saying that we can only use the primary , theatrical film to write out the plot, you cannot interpret the cinematographic techniques in any way (unless there is explaination in the movie) beyond what the viewer sees. To take the rapid flashing of several scenes from the past 28 days and infer time reversal is out of line. Instead, as IHulk is saying, "Scenes from the past 28 days..." which is an appropriate out-of-universe description of that segment, is the only thing we can say about this, nothing else. Now, I know when you add in the director's cut, and various post-release interviews with the creators, we know that scene is meant to show time's reversal, but now we go back to why we can't include the discussion of the general premise of the in-film time travel book or the telekinesis to strip the engine off the jet at the end. By staying out-of-universe, and using whatever sources to discuss the plot (which doesn't change between theatrical and director's cut, incidentally) we avoid all these issues and make the plot summary more sensible. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In light of all the "extra" stuff, this seems more like we're watching the Tangent Universe fall apart, top-to-bottom. Yes, there is time travel of sorts, but not in a linear, "rewind" way. After the TU collapses, the story picks up at the point in time right before it came into being. There was no need to go back in time, just laterally, through the Tangential Vortex to where and when it's attached to the Primary. Not offering this to be put in the article, just saying this particular scene can reasonably be seen a few ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I offer no interpretation. That is what is in the movie, so that is what goes in the plot summary. The reason that "Scenes..." doesn't belong is explained very clearly above. This is not an in- or out-of-universe issue. Again, we say "Donnie wakes up." not "The scene is Donnie waking up." We don't refer to the elements of the film (scenes, pictures, edits, etc), we say what is in the film, seen and heard. What is seen in this case is the previous 28 days running backward, so that's what we say. Now, I have been thinking that it would be better to find another way to say that, but I haven't thought of anything that more literally says what is seen. Maybe you have a good suggestion for that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What is seen in this case (from an INUNIVERSE perspective) is not time moving backward. The Tangent Universe is anchored to a specific time and place in the Primary (over the Darko house on October 2) by the Tangential Vortex. When the engine enters the vortex, it goes directly to this time and place, not first back through the 28 Tangent days. (More like chapter skipping a DVD than rewinding a VHS.) These 28 days cease to exist as the rest of the Tangent Universe does, leaving only remnants in dreams. If time in the Tangent Universe had actually gone backwards before we reset to Primary October 2, the events in it would never have happened at all, in any universe. Thus, Primary Cunningham wouldn't have remorse, Primary Frank wouldn't touch his eye, Donnie would not die happy and, most importantly, the Artifact wouldn't have been returned to crush Donnie. See? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. We write out of universe per WP:WAF. We use terms like viewer, scenes, opening shots, flashbacks, etc. to describe the narration as shown to the viewer if it is a necessary element in surmising the plot of the movie. Again, I refer to Memento, where it would be completely impossible to describe the movie as shown to the viewer without discussing the cinematic arrangement of the film; otherwise we'd have about 48 small paragraphs describing each scene; similarly for films with very non-linear storytelling (Sliding Doors, Eternal Sunset of the Spotless Mind) or less narrative films (pretty much any Monty Python film), we need to discuss the film's structure in the plot. This is standard across the board for works of fiction; films don't get a special break here. We don't use OOU descriptions all the time, only when the cinematographic elements infer themselves into the plot, explaining them from what the viewer sees. If the action is simple to see (eg "Donnie wakes up"), no, we don't explain that OOU-ly. But when you have something like this flash-back of scenes that imply the reversing of time but its not explicitly stated that, we can't introduce OR and thus resort to describing the effect since it is somewhat critical to the overall narrative - in other words, we can "scenes of the past 28 days flash by" but we can't take the next logical leap to say "...implying the reversal of time". And we can't just say "The past 28 days flash by", because "who" do they flash by for? Not Donnie or any of the characters, but the viewer. This is a critical point where we need to write in an out-of-universe style to avoid any OR. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, this is not an in-universe question. You can confirm this by reading some good plot summaries. Look at the one we are working on; this one has no reference to elements of the film. I'm sorry to have to correct you on this. I know you mean well, but there is no question that you are mistaken. Referring to elements of the film is not done in a good plot summary. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it help if you thought of "scene" as "the place of an occurrence or action" rather than "a motion-picture or television episode or sequence"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your problem with "days" just as it seems you have a notion about my problem with "scene". I was thinking maybe "everything goes in reverse" would work, although it's not completely satisfactory. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's even less satisfactory. "Everything" includes not just time, but space and thoughts moving backward. But I appreciate you trying to compromise. How about "images"? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this refers to the pictures directly, which for me is wrong. Would this work: "Everything quickly repeats in reverse order, until..." --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

An image doesn't necessarily mean a photographic image. It can be a mental image or apparition. Masem is right about WAF allowing us refer to the photographic images, but this word allows a reader to freely interpret it as either of the three, while presenting no interpretation of its own. Your latest edit doesn't change the problem of interpreting these images as time actually reversing. It just makes it wordier. I appreciate that "recur" can also mean "Donnie is remembering this", but by omitting "to Donnie" it strongly implies reoccurence. This wording also prevents (in a literal way) a reader from interpreting this as a purely aesthetic plot device to symbolize the story (not time itself) resetting to an earlier (film) scene. If I'm unclear about anything, let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my summary, there are no "images" seen. That word is incorrect so let's not use an incorrect word. There are events in reverse action and order. Let's stick to what's in the movie. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If "image" is incorrect, and you insist on saying "days reappear", you must mean they appear in tangible, physical form (that is, they reoccur, backwards). This is an interpretation that is not explicitly supported by the film. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep introducing original research here by the insistence on avoiding out-of-universe or external information. "Some of the previous 28 days re-appear in reverse order and reverse action,..." NO character in the film is shown to have witnessed this, and no text is provided in the film to explain this. If we are 100% sticking to what is shown on screen, you cannot explain these sequence this way. This is where, for every other fictional plot summary on WP, we would either jump to one sentence explained out of universe to say that the viewer sees this (allowing the view to come to their own conclusion), or we include refs to the director's commentary that positively identifies this as time rewinding back to the original universe from the tangent. You can't avoid either of these cases - unless you completely remove this scene, which seems the wrong solution because it is a transition from Oct 31 to Oct 2. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. So now you claim that the plot summary only includes events that have been witnessed by a character in the film? (No, that's wrong.) I watch the movie and what is on the screen? Well, there are events that we have seen before. They reappear. They are shown in the reverse order that they happened in the story. They are shown not with forward action, but with reverse action. They have appeared before, so they are reappearing but with these two differences. All of the events we see when we watch this part of the movie happened in the movie's previous 28 days. So what words should we use to say that someone watching the movie will see some of the previous 28 days in reverse order and reverse action? Hey, I have an idea... --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How is "scenes" or "images" (each with non-film related meanings) inappropriate, while reverse action isn't?InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That is funny. To make it seem like reverse action is a film term you have to link it to the film term 'reverse motion'. Wow. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd never heard the term before, so I Googled it to see if it was different to "reverse order". The first (and most relevant to what we're describing) hit was the Reverse motion Wiki article, where it's a synonym. What else could it mean in this context that "reverse order" doesn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just English. Action in reverse is hard to understand? I think you're a native speaker of English. And your special invention that reverse order applied to nanoseconds is the same as reverse motion? Wow. My apologies for figuring out which words to use. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So is there a difference between "reverse action" and "appearing in reverse order" or not? If not, it's redundant and should be removed. Why should reverse order apply to days, but not to smaller units? Is there anything citable that says it shouldn't? Also, lay off the bitchy sarcasm and rhetorical questions. I'm trying to come to an understanding with you, not a flame war. Just counter my points, accept them or ask for clarification, like I do with yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You want to have it explained to you why ordering dates in reverse is not the same as motion in reverse? You think that readers will read "reverse order" and think "oh, yeah, they mean nanoseconds so that is just like reverse motion"? You really need to have that explained to you? I'm pretty sure you are the first person to engage in this particular type of sophistry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Yes" to all your questions. If someone spits a loogie, takes three steps forward and unscrews a lightbulb, it all follows in normal order. If that person later appears to screw in a lightbulb, take three steps back and suck a loogie up off the floor, I've just seen the same thing in reverse order. What's the difference here? (Please don't answer with a question) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides, we don't actually see any days appear at all, forward or backward. We see about five minutes of scenes from those days. So it's not even an accurate description of the onscreen images. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

=

Yes it is a in-universe vs out-of-universe question. One moment the film's at Oct 31, a jet engine falling into a vortex, and then seconds later the film is at Oct 2, Donnie about to be killed. Cinematically, the scenes are connected by the rapid flash of scenes the viewer has seen before. But there's no in-universe explanation for this given in theatrical release. We could omit the flash of scenes and just say that Donnie wakes up on Oct 2, laughs just before being crushed by the engine, but to the reader who has not scene this film, that's a huge frickin' disjoint that makes no sense. So we clearly need to talk about the means the scenes are connected, but we have no way of saying - without either introducing original research (which we can't do, period) or referring to sourced material that explains it (which you have said we can't do because its not part of the cinematic experience) - what that connecting scene is supposed to represent. Yes, it implies time reversal, but could mean so many other things (maybe the 28 days was a dream state, for example). So since we can't explain it in-universe all we can do is explain it out-of-universe, what the viewer is shown, and let the reader make the connection themselves. Alternatively, we cite a secondary source that affirms this sequence is time reversal, but this goes against your concerns with diverting from the strictly the theatrical run.

Again, I will direct you to WP:WAF and specifically the "Plot summaries" section, which reads Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. Our Featured Articles on works of fiction including film use this type of style throughout when appropriate, particularly when it is necessary to simplify and condense the plot. Yes, if the plot never requires this specific out-of-universe approach, we don't have to engage that language, but on films, particularly mindfuck films like Donnie Darko, stepping out of universe to explain something helps, and trying to stay in-universe hinders the writing of concise plots. I've written more than enough fiction articles to know this is the standard for WP, and makes no sense to avoid it. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean the entire plot summary is wrong? And every other well-written plot summary on WP? So this is your idea of a well-written plot summary: "The movie opens on Middlesex, Virginia, and goes to a picture of a guy named Donnie Darko who is followed by the camera as he gets out of a bed in a room lit to look like it's night. Another actor enters, wearing a rabbit costume. The scene cuts to the two characters as they exit the location house and tracks them as the actor in the rabbit costume leads the Donnie Darko character through the set to a place dressed to look like an exterior street." That is your idea of how it should be? Okay, go for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, and I already said that's not what Out-of-universe implies. Using terms referring to the real-world aspects sparingly through a plot summary to provide a foundation for the non-viewer is what WAF recommends. Nearly all of Donnie Darko's plot doesn't require this type of placement -- until you hit this flash of sequences in the film. None of the characters experience it and no explanatory text explains it so there's no in-universe way to describe it without engaging in original research. So here's where writing one sentence in an out-of-universe approach resolves the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. This sequence of images is far different from anything else in the film. It's shown in an ethereal, cloudy dream-like way that signifies (to me, anyway) this is what Donnie sees and hears in his own mind (or in eternity). It's in between universes, so can't really be "happening" like everything else happens. Like I said, sort of like a Saw recap. Is that time travel, too? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. If you agree with Masem, that indicates that you don't know what in-universe means or how to apply it. Sorry to see that and I have not time to waste on that kind of error. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Then please stop "correcting" it. Use your time wisely. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless something has changed dramatically since I was wiki-light for months on end, using a reliable source to explain the confusing sequence should be fine and I know I've seen it elsewhere on the site (the plot summary guidelines have noted it as a possibility for confusing works, haven't looked, has that changed?). I've seen it done where the incident (in this case time reversal) is specified within our plot section with an inline citation to the interpretation from the director/writer/whatever other official person. And I've seen it done where the plot section just talks about what is on screen and a separate interpretation/themes type section is listed elsewhere (often a subsection of writing or production) with the sources provided there (I believe Inception used this method for the spinning top thingy at the end). It seems to me the former (in plot) would be best when there is a definitive answer from the production team and the latter would work well when the concept is left deliberately vague and/or there are multiple interpretations floating around in reliable sources. Millahnna (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What Donnie knows...

As it reads today, the plot summary implies that Donnie knows who is on the plane. I don't recall his state of mind at the time but I question that he knows. Any thoughts? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He might know by the same factors that give him telekinesis per the director's cut, but even in that version, there's no evidence shown to the viewer he knew. We, the viewer, are the only ones aware this was his mother/sister's plane from the theatrical cut. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I never got the sense that he knew who was on the plane in either the theatrical release or the directors cut. Granted I haven't seen this film in about five years. But I don't think anything was strongly implied enough that we should be noting it like that in the plot. Millahnna (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

His mom leaves a message from the airport about taking the red-eye home that night. Granted, he may not have been paying total attention, since he was losing his (tangential) virginity, but he heard it. I'm not certain, but I think she mentions trouble getting a flight, so her plane would presumably be the only one over Middlesex that morning. In any case, either wording is fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No talk of flight trouble, but she mentions the time: "Anyway... we're taking the red-eye back tonight and we should arrive around six a.m. I hope everything is alright. Bye." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

THanks for double checking, Hulk. Upon taking a second look at the current plot summary, I don't feel like it's necessarily implying his foreknowledge. But if others think that it is, perhaps we could rephrase a bit to go for a more "just what is onscreen" approach. We don't really include the phone conversation and the summary is short enough that we could insert a sentence or two about it and let the readers decide. It may be covered in some of the sources that might cover the time reversal thing in the above conversation, as well, so perhaps whatever solution is found for that could cover this, too. Am I making any sense? I haven't had enough coffee yet. Millahnna (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Ring was concerned with the wording before this edit. It slightly hinted, by "Donnie...watches", that he sees it exactly as described. Personally, I wouldn't read it like that; just guessing. I don't think the question of whether Donnie knows is important enough to the plot to warrant mentioning the answering machine message (which is in the theatrical version). By this time, he's convinced The Philosophy of Time Travel is true, so he knows crippling the jet isn't going to kill his family; in fact, it'll save them. So whoever's on the plane wouldn't make a difference. But I don't exactly object to adding it, if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Also, it's not a "time reversal thing". It's an "alleged time reversal thing". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include a section (as or close to as seen here) relaying the content of the fictional book "The Philosophy of Time Travel" (the text of which appears in the film)? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, per my reasons and policies offered here and here. In short, it is very significant to the plot as well as to understanding it, is easily verifiable and is seemingly allowed by Paragraph 2 of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PASI. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• No, per the reasons stated by Betty Logan and myself here, all of which InedibleHulk has decided to ignore. WP:FILMPLOT does not allow this kind of information, which is entirely extraneous to the plot. In addition, Inedible has violated WP:3RR and used a baldfaced lie (i.e. that consensus had been reached on the Wikiproject Film talkpage) in his last edit summary to justify his most recent revert. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a lie, it was an honest mistake. And I didn't ignore your reasons, I carefully explained why they don't apply. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• No the book is integral to the plot, but only in that it sets out what is happening at a meta-level that the movie can't really spend time to explain to the viewer in any other conscience manner (eg: there's no team of scientists that explain the Prime/Tangent aspects throughout as they fight against the collapse; these are regular people living regular lives). To go into any more details on the ficitional book beyond what drives the plot is too much. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• No (at least in its current form). As per my reasons at the Film project I feel it is perpetuating too much INUNIVERSE detail. That said, I would not be against the inclusion of such details if they could be sourced to secondary sources, since it would then come under thematic analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, we don't need secondary sources to describe text which appears in the primary source (the film). It would be thematic analysis to apply the text to the plot in an effort to effort to explain it, but not in simply relaying it (directly paraphrased for copyright reasons), as was done. The final sentences (saying Donnie is the Receiver, etc.) are analysis and are sourced by a secondary. If I'm wrong about any of this, please point out the policy or guideline that says so. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it also undue weight to include so much primary-sourced info. There's no question the book's important and its explanation of time travel critical to understanding the story, but the section being added went far too much detail that we don't need here. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument. What constitutes "too much detail" is subjective and debatable, but I won't debate it here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not that subjective really: we permit a small amount of INUNIVERSE detail since a basic understanding of the plot is considered important for fictional works. The plot summary should essentially relay the premise and basic story. The point here is that the film's specific form of time travel is not essential to describing the main plot points of the story. For that purpose the film can be used as a primary source. Beyond the plot summary, everything else should be covered by way of real world commentary i.e. we should be summarizing what secondary sources have reported about various aspects of the film. If sources have reported on the time travel elements of the film, then it can be covered in the form of thematic analysis or an interpretation. It's all a matter of perspective: we are not particularly interested in the film itself—not even in the plot really, it's just there to familiarize the reader with the work being discussed—but rather we are trying to document what publications are saying about the film. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I think you may misunderstand something - time travel is a just a minor point in this book, despite its title. The bulk of it deals with how the Manipulated (everyone) interacts with the Receiver (Donnie) with the collective unconscious goal of removing the Artifact from the Tangent Universe. These interactions (i.e., the plot) occur exactly as the book says they will, throughout the film, which is why I believe it works as a Plot subsection; it's another way of looking at the plot. And yes, I can see how this may sound like analysis, but it really isn't. It's just an accurate summary of words on the screen, no different than summarizing a novel. Readers may use this summary to interpret the film (as the director obviously intended), but there is absolutely no analysis presented by the summary. So it wouldn't need secondary sourcing, no matter what section it is in. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as undue weight and pure plot goes, what are your thoughts on the version reverted here? (It's not mine, I just made some minor edits between creation and deletion.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, since it goes beyond the film story. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For our purposes, there is fortunately an article in Salon that lays out the film's plot on the first page, then goes on to explain what is not in the film that interests Hulk. An invaluable service. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd already used that as the source for claiming Darko is the Receiver. As far as this "not in the film" stuff, check out these screenshots. The POTT chapter scenes are listed in bold. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And when you did, you were referring to the interpretation of the film, not the content of the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, because the content of the film doesn't need a secondary source. It's in the the film. Interpretation does. I'm not understanding what you're saying here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are including interpretation, sourced to the Salon article. So that's not the plot, that's the interpretation. The Salon article has a plot summary and I think it establishes pretty well that your interpolations of the content of the fictional book are not the on-screen events of the film. This incident does point out a deficiency in the plot summary guidelines that perhaps will be addressed in the future. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In your last few edits, you removed several things that are clearly primary sourced, apparently because they aren't mentioned in one particular review. By this logic, I could find the briefest summary of the plot available and remove anything not in it. As I've explained on your talk page, Wikipedia is allowed to use multiple sources and the absence of info in one doesn't negate its existence in another. The content of the book, the unknown origin of the engine and the locations of the parents during the party are all in the film. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official Website subsection in Release?

I think it would be good to have. It's an unusual site/game, far different from the usual promotional crap. It reveals details about people and things from the film that a viewer would reasonably be interested in learning (three subsequent character deaths, elaboration on the jet engine, possibly more I'm forgetting). I get that we'd need a secondary source to talk about the site's unique format, but could it be cited directly as a source for the story information it contains? It's all there, but it's not exactly simple to find (compared to say, in a magazine). Here it is for those unfamiliar. Suggestions? Questions? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This very cool site has sadly been recently replaced by the usual promotional crap. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)