Talk:The Butterfly Effect/Archive 2

A completely different Interpretation

Hello,

first of all, I want to say that I come from Germany and my English is not that good. Fell free to correct my mystakes :-)

While watching the film the second time I discovered a sentence in the 5th Timeline that gives me reason to belive, that the whole interpretation of "Timetraveling" is wrong. As the Blackouts (which are defined by "not remembering what happend") are the "changingpoints" in Evans life, it means that, whenever he wakes up in a new timeline, it is the first time that he knows within this timeline that he changed his life. An example: He wakes up in the second timeline in Kayleighs bed. This timeline is based on the first change that he made in his past. Because this changed was made in a blackout (and he can't remember what happend), the 13 to 20 year old Evan in this second timeline doesen't know that it is based on the change during the blackout. What I want to say is, that only the 20 year old Evan knows about the timetravelling.

In the fifth timeline, when he talks to the doctor and ask for his journals, the doctor responses: "It hurts me to go through this again. There are no journals. There never were. It is part of the phantasyworld your mind created to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh Miller. Think Evan, THINK. You've created a disease that does not exist. Alternate universes with Colleges, prisons and paraplegia" But the doctor can't know anything about these parallel universes, because even Evan didn't know anything about it until he wakes up in this timeline when he is 20. The conclusion would be, that the doctor is right and all the parallel timlines are just made up to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh.

I look forward on comments to my interpretation. Greetings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.59.98.102 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

You are quite right my friend. Only Evan knows what's going on. I have thought about this for a while, and here's two theories I have:

-From a Science-Fiction view: By the fifth timeline, Evan's brain was broken. Leaking. When he went back in time and killed Kaleigh, he broke the child Evan's brain too, and accidentally left all the memories in it. Child Evan didn't know what to think, with 50 or 60 years of memories, as well as killing Kalleigh, he broke down and was then committed. The doctor would have thought all Evan's stories were just stories, but they were actual time-travelling.

OR

-From a medical point of view: Evan actually killed Kalleigh. There was no time-travelling; he made it all up, and he is crazy, which he inherited from his father. As well, Evan has a brain tumor which is killing him. By the end of the movie, Evan breaks into the doctor's office and hallicinates he has fixed everything and everyone is happy. Evan actually dies, and Kalleigh has been dead for a long time.

I'm not sure which is right and which is wrong. It's very open-ended to interpretation, but I'm pretty sure they meant the Sci-Fi version. (They have an episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer like this too; drives me crazy thinking about the nuances of this..) JimmmyThePiep 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

I think the two theories above are amongst the most sensible I've heard, and would like to offer another, which is partially an extension on the first. I have seen the film a few times, and my friend always likes to tell me the message it gives out is that you are in control of your life, and you can alter the future - its not set. However, it strikes me that in each 'timeline', Evan still has all the memories of the others - so, when he makes the first change, and wakes up at college, in bed with Kayleigh, he still has the memories of the other life he had been living, and he is in fact still the same person - which is made obvious when Kayleigh says to him (in timeline 2) that there is 'something different' - the way he talks, walks, his mannerisms, everything is different. He is still the same person. Each time he changes the path he is on, or 'goes back in time', he isn't really, because if those changes had genuinely taken place, and that was the path he was living, all memories of his other lives would have vanished. This would make it, instead of five or six parallel universes, one straight line, each path joining up to the next, only moving forward in time, and not back, or into different universes.

Also, the fact that he has no 'life line' and should in fact not be alive reminds me of 'Donnie Darko' - the opening of parallel universes, where the only way to right it was the death of himself. I think that 'The Butterfly Effect' has the same theme - that Evan was never supposed to have been born, and that the only way to correct is to kill himself, which is what he does.

Will be intersted to see what people say :) -- Kiwi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.232.149 (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistake!!

Someone added this in the continuity section:

"In one timeline, Evan goes to Kayleigh's father's house. He holds her father against the house, and reminds him that they had a chat when he was only seven. Since Evan found out where she lived, it is assumed that her father remembered, and told him in fear. However, in that same timeline, Kayliegh mentions that they had had sex in front of her father's video camera."

The person interpreted this WRONG. Kayleigh and Evan did NOT have sex in front of the video camera. All Kayleigh said was "Go back to when I was seven, and **** me in front of my Dad's video camera, and straighten me out a bit." She was just saying that to hurt him and offend him by telling him to go do that. It NEVER happened. Evan changed that time line when he was a teenager, so when they were kids and in the basement it had STILL been altered by Evan the first time he changed things, so nothing happened in the basement. Bottom line, they DIDN'T have sex. Kayleigh was just saying that to hurt Evan. Dark Spidey 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Basically Evan forced the father to back away. Evan was pretty wicked o that scene, haha!--98.178.217.238 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Evan the Murderer

I think it's important that Evan is technically a murderer walking free: -first, he kills Tommy in somewhat self-defense, somewhat cold-blood. -he also kills the two men in prison. -not to mention the accidental murder of Kaleigh with the filibuster.

Just because the timeline's changed doesn't mean he himself didn't choose to kill Tommy; it just means the murder didn't stick.

• (Another Note; at the end, when everything's all happy, it might be pointed out that Evan has literally erased people from existence. Kaleigh's mother started a family, and by throwing Kaleigh into her mother's timeline, that family never existed.)(.. not really murder; just deletion.) JimmmyThePiep 13:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Evan never murdered anyone. At best killing Tommy was self-defense. At worst it was voluntary manslaughter, not murder. The 2 men in prison were just assaulted, not killed. Kaleigh's death was not murder because it was not an intentional act, it was an accident. And you can't murder people who never existed in the first place. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Evan shouldn't have been sent to prison for killing Tommy because it should have been self defense. Consider the fact it was Tommy was the one with the bat Evan was lucky to even get it away from him without getting killed himself. I believe that this "Perfect timeline" wasn't so perfect and Kaleigh didn't back up Evan's story to the cops. Consider the fact she complains about the special evening Evan prepared for her. Also when Evan is in prision his mom suggested that Kaleigh wasn't doing well. Kaleigh isn't worth the trouble Evan went for her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.203 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, he escaped from prison, he didn't get let off. Second, he didn't kill the two people in prison, he just stabbed them. Third, he accidently killed Kayleigh. Fourth, if he didn't kill Tommy, he may have been killed himself, or suffered serious damage, which is self-defense. Evan never murdered anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And why was Kayleigh so defensive over Tommy in the first place. At worst, Evan used excessive force against Tommy, but would Tommy have tried to kill him later on anyways... probably. Evan was protecting himself, but also took his anger out on Tommy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was hard to feel sorry for Tommy, whether he was murdered or not, and whether Evan used excessive force or not. You had to feel worse for Evan for being attacked in the first place.74.7.3.202 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify; You cant kill a person that never existed. If I had "saved" reality as it is present then went out and killed alot of people, then "loaded" back to the saved reality, i wouldnt be a killer since the people that i killed never existed. What is happening to Evan is that he slowly looses his "loading device" (journals). If he cant reset the timeline he will only go deeper into caos... Thats whats happening. The only person he killed was himself (DC version). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azylum (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One can't say whether the 2 prisoners died, the film didn't show if the 2 prisoners died. It was rather a bad stabbing. I don't think Evan meant to kill them though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture Poster...

I have seen the poster included on the article and it says "Date Demi Moore...Get Your Own Movie" ... a little photoshop there, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamael (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Yea, somebody already pointed that out. You must have eyesight, or else you wouldn't have noticed. JimmmyThePiep 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The real posture should be something like this; http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/butterfly_effect.jpg . I don't know anything about the fair usage terms in relation to Wikipedia so I'll let someone else take care of this. Kishyotai (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

One Cannot say Evan didn't kill the 2 prisoners, the film didn't show if the prisoners died. The stabbing was pretty bad, so you can't say it was just an "assult". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Groundhog day (Comparisons)

For the Comparisons section:

The scene in which Evan attempts to reveal his powers and problems to the addict version of Kayleigh in the cafe is reminiscent of a similar scene in groundhog day. Bill Murray's character tells Andie MacDowell's what is happening to him, how he is reliving the same day over and over, and then goes on to prove it by telling her things about herself he could not possibly know unless this strange event was happening. This is similar to how Evan is reliving the same few memories of his life over and over again, seeing how his actions effect what happens (just as Murray's character does in his day) and then proves it to Kayleigh in exactly the same manner as Murray.

Umm, I know I'm not particularily talented at writing wiki-worthy-words but if someone could write a better version of what I said I feel it's worthy of inclusion.

Trivia?

Is it just me or did the whole trivia section just dissapear?

It doesn't add any understanding of the subject the article is on, this is why it is listed in Wikipedia Guidelines that trivia sections are discouraged. Plus, this article is not a stub. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Age of Evan after 7?

Excuse me, After he was 7 It said "7 years after" This would of made him 14, NOT 13! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Fighter (talk • contribs) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Butterfly Effect - Poster.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references section

User:DJH47 keeps removing the cultural references section, apparently in response to a discussion we had on the Talk:Rock Lobster page. So far, he's deleted cultural references on a number of pages, as seen from his edit history. I've tried to get him to discuss his feelings on talk pages before deleting entire sections of content, but so far he hasn't, so I'm starting this section here to hopefully facilitate the discussion.

I feel the cultural reference sections are valid and noteworthy. When I write in my edit summaries that they are supported by consensus, I'm referring to the fact that almost every article on a book/flm/tv show/song has a section on wikipedia mentioning some of the noteworthy references both contained in the work, and also referring back to the work. That's easy to see, simply by searching.

References to a work in other media help to establish notability. Maybe this isn't necessary for huge articles or subjects like Star Wars, but for other, middle-of-the-road articles, it helps to indicate that a work is notable and has entered the mainstream.

Again, I would assert that the "cultural references" sections of wikipedia articles have been attained by popular consensus from the large number of article that have the section. I would ask that they not all be unilaterally deleted without discussion. Snowfire51 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In all the "Cultural References" sections I have seen on other articles, the references are for ones made within the article's subject to an external cultural event. So, for example, if somewhere within the movie The Butterfly Effect a reference was made to Family Guy, that reference would appear on The Butterfly Effect's page. I have never seen a reference go the other way. That is, a reference made in Family Guy to The Butterfly Effect appearing on The Butterfly Effect page. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I believe the reference that is under dispute belongs on the Family Guy page, NOT The Butterfly Effect's page. Captain Infinity (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this because last time I gave examples, the editor in question went through and deleted all of them without discussing any of his deletions. Just off the top of my head, here are examples of other works that have a section on Cultural References that not only mention references in the work itself, but also external references back to the subject of the page. Braveheart mentions not only the Family Guy reference, but also South park and The Office.Doctor Who has an extensive section on other works that reference back to it. The Matrix is a fairly well-kept page, with a short list of examples of other works that reference its concepts and film-making techniques. Even The Sopranos has an extensive list of works that reference or pay homage to it.

It still seems to me that the "cultural impact" sections of wikipedia pages go both ways, in the interest of providing full information and establishing notability. The notability factor may not be a high one when discussing The Sopranos or Doctor Who, but on smaller works such as The Butterfly Effect or Rock Lobster (song), it can show the work is still culturally significant. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The references are not kept because there is a legitimate reason to keep them, rather, a small enclave of fandom has invaded Wikipedia and wishes to cross-reference every article into a tangled mess of "intertextuality" (their buzzword). Notability does not require the approval of other works, but rather that of journalistic or academic sources. --DJH47 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, you're establishing a new, wikipedia-wide consensus, based solely on your own feelings and opinions. If you feel this is the correct way to go about things, can I suggest that instead of deleting other editors work without explanation or discussion, that you instead work with other editors to establish a new consensus? Snowfire51 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been giving legitimate justifications for my actions which goes along with wiki-wide quality-article consensus. What else do you need? --DJH47 (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amedo.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In Response to Klptyzm

On the contrary, the plot summary is only 152 words. 'Sometimes a more complex plot may call for a longer summary.' [Summaries] Back to the Future 2's plot summary is currently 842 words. Plots with multiple timelines are inherently complicated. While the subheadings and age summaries would need to go, the timeline summaries should be distilled to one sentence each and information which is repeated elsewhere in the summary should be removed. You have yet to engage in discussion on this talk page for such a major edit and evidently a controversial one. 121.44.108.62 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir, please tell me how 2,800 approximate words is necessary for a plot summary? I doubt the plot is that complicated; I'm sure 10 year olds can figure out the gist of what happens in the first watching. This doesn't need to be discussed on the talk page; I've cited WP:PLOT and basically stated what it goes into detail on: the plot is too big and sometimes oversized plots can constitute copyright violation. I like the fact that you apparently have an idea of how to fix the plot, but am pretty annoyed you've simply reverted instead of putting your ideas to work. I already said I'm open to extending the plot well enough to explain the plot but without being an insane length, which the current plot is. Once again, I'm going to revert the large, unnecessary plot; if it's done again, that very much constitutes vandalism. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the extended plot summary very helpful and informational. Zeke72791 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Helpful and informational is not what Klptyzm was arguing. "Plot summaries should be between 300 and 500 words for a typical episode or story, and longer as needed for adequate discussion of a longer work, especially if the plot is very complicated." Klptyzm, I must guess, was arguing exactly that, that plot summaries should be between 300 and 500 words for a typical episode or story. This is a normal movie, and I don't see why we can't pare down the text to be closer to 500 words.

To clear up some confusion, the plot summary is not 152 words, the plot summary is over 2800 words. Also, the plot summary doesn't appear to me to be a copyright violation. Please do not blank the article text, and instead discuss the issue here. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was saying. I wasn't really trying to hint that this plot was constituting copyright violation, but that it very well grow to that size. Considering that I've cited WP:PLOT in some of my edits removing the text, I honestly don't feel this needs to be discussed; at best, it will just end in the conclusion I suggested in one of those said edits: to extend the shorter plot summary to an extent that is a reasonable size and explains the plot thoroughly. The editors, especially the one above, simply ignore this fact and revert my edits and attempt to call them "vandalism." The editor above even tried to remove warnings I have given him or her. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And he was perfectly in the right to remove those warnings, as you were abusing the template. You need to read "What vandalism is not". --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if reverts policy supported edits without a valid reason? Even when the editor doesn't even try to discuss it until weeks after the issue arises? Well if it's apparently ok to ignore policy, then let me go back to a few past issues where policy was consulted and let me tell all the users involved that they are wrong to use policy as a defense. That's ridiculous man. It would be a different story if there was only one plot section up and I blanked it; I know full well that's vandalism. But there are two duplicate plot summaries up, one that is of ridiculous size, and one that is quite sufficient, but perhaps needs to be expanded a bit. The fact that such an issue is even being discussed is ridiculous in itself. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If we removed the current plot summary and edited the timeline summaries into something shorter but kept the basic idea, wouldn't we all be happy? --Darklink90 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Klptyzm and I have both made our own suggestions for doing a summary between the 152 word length summary and the 2800 word length summary (should be far closer to the 152 obviously). It's really just waiting for someone who cares enough about this to actually wade through all those timelines summaries and cut then down to a half-reasonable length. 121.44.28.188 (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I'm removing the bigger one and encouraging additions to the smaller one. I honestly haven't seen the movie in a while, so I'm not too sure the info I remember right now is totally reliable. Also, honestly I'm not even sure the smaller one even needs to be extended as I don't see how the plot is uber complex; I suggested that mainly out of compromise. If editors will actually take the time to edit the smaller plot summary instead of doing repetitive reverts, then we certainly all would be happy. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

2002?

I was just wondering, where is it stated that the present timeline takes place in 2002? It was mostly (if not entirely) filmed in 2003. I'm not arguing that it doesn't, i just wondered where it oficially says the main story is 2002 and not 2003. What was so important about 2002? I haven't watched the movie in awhile, that's why i asked. Terminator14 (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

New Poster

I've added a new poster image from IMDB with fair use rationale in mind since I noticed there had been some issues in the past with keeping up the fair use rationale. Enjoy. Yaminator (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary needs rewriting

The plot summary of the movie reads like far too conversationally and needs some heavy rewriting. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to my (Klptyzm's) old version that I edit. It's kind of sad that even after such a discussion above, people still won't listen to reason. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That looks a LOT better. I was hunting through versions to try and find something, thanks! -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's you, Klptyzm, back on your quest to eviscerate the article, I see. Who let you out of the 5th dimension this time? --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT. I pray that the thousands of sentences of text above about why the article needs to be changes will finally be read. Stuff like this is partially why I left. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not try bullying your WP:PLOT on a film that people care about....try Blade Runner for instance, that's got an enormous plot section. See how far you get. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument works along the same lines as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because you found an article that has a long plot section, doesn't refute that the most useful plot sections are short and to the point. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it seems to have a somewhat complicated plot, if there are multiple versions. Note that I quickly glanced at it; even with that said, the past version of this article's plot section was much longer than Blade Runner's. Why not give up this petty quarrel and just try to expand the current plot section a bit? 144.96.26.167 (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Complicated? More complicated than The Butterfly Effect's plot? Compared to TBE, Blade Runner is amazingly straightforward. Folks aren't going to come to this article for a single paragraph synopsis, they're going to come here hoping for explanations of what the movie is about. And they'll be disappointed now, because the article tells them nothing. As for "giving up the petty quarrel", I'm not reverting you anymore, am I? And for two reasons; I'm an eventualist, and know that the article will eventually grow into what it should be once you've tired of eviscerating it (I see from your contribs that this is the only movie article you are concerned with) and because I DGAF. --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently it is, because for one, I don't edit Wikipedia that much anymore because of this type of stuff that's happening now, and two, I keep editing this article because all the editors that supported the ridiculously sized plot section that violated WP:PLOT won't do crap to expand the smaller one (which is what I truly want, though I know that other editors who were reverting it are very capable of expanding it to a satisfactory size). I'm getting increasingly agitated with the "the article sucks now" arguments; if it's bad now, why not expand the smaller one then??? Why not do policy-sanctioned editing instead of incessant reverting??? And you're not giving up the quarrel because you won't fix up the plot. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Every time I "fix the plot" you revert. You've clearly decided to own the article and see no edits but your own as worthy of keeping. It's not worth my time to fight a troll like you because I know you will eventually tire of this and move on to some other article, at which time this one will be fixed. --Captain Infinity (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting to a excessive version of the plot section is hardly fixing the plot; you obviously haven't read WP:PLOT. Kindly do it and keep unnecessary accusations to yourself. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. And that version you like was even tagged with a "plot" tag. That should say something. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How far this article has come...121.44.40.20 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm enjoying the incessant immaturity one editor is exhibiting. And by enjoying I mean it needs to stop. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at rewriting the plot summary. I think I've struck a balance between the desire to keep the page uncluttered and the desire to fairly depict the plot of the film. I hope this works for all sides. Stile4aly (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I feel a little more fleshing out could be placed in the article, I (Klptyzm) feel the contributions are very sufficient and I thank you. 144.96.26.32 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Properly explained the Noon Day Stalker ending

What with it being a funny ending, I've actually explained the Noon Day Stalker ending. It probably could be written a bit better but it'll do for now until someone feels like tweaking it. 86.148.125.81 (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Oscy

This has been removed. Continuing to reinsert this nonsense will not be tolerated. Stile4aly (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-entered the explanation. Unless you can actually give valid reason for not including it, as opposed to just deleting it when no-one else had for over a month (because there is seemingly no reason to) and throwing about accusations of "vandalism" and "nonsense", I will have to continue re-inserting this accurate, adequately-written information.

Grow up. 86.177.126.51 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1) "Grow up"? Please see WP:Civil. You're not helping your case. 2) Multiple people feel this is vandalism. I'm inclined to agree unless you can provide a source to back up your information. Can you? Doniago (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's about time you bucked up your ideas and FINALLY took it to the Discussion page. It was like talking to a brick wall. The DVD's deleted scenes. I believe it's the Director's Cut. 86.177.127.164 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Given that multiple people have reversed your edits in the past, they're not -my- ideas. 2) Personally I'd like to hear from someone who isn't you that these edits are legitimate, but I appreciate that your notes are now sourced. Doniago (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you're right, I meant Captian Infinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.116.55 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The link supplied for this nonsense leads to a YouTube video. First of all, YouTube videos are not allowed as references on Wikipedia. Secondly, nowhere in the video does anything exist that mentions garbage such as stalkers or underwear. Find a proper cite or this stupidity will be removed again. --Captain Infinity (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply used the Youtube link that was ALREADY UP THERE when I was originally editing the section. If you had been paying attention, you would know this. The two scenes I am talking about are on the DVD. You have constantly undone my edits and have been very rude to me yet it appears you have not even watched the director's cut DVD nor the deleted scenes in question! If you do not know anything about it, don't butt in, and certainly don't butt in accusing other people of "garbage" and other such insults. 86.177.123.106 (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that there's clear disagreement as to the accuracy of this information, I propose leaving it out until such time as another user is willing to vouch for the accuracy of this information and a non-Youtube link can be provided as a reference. Doniago (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only show links saying that the scenes called 'Noon Day Stalker' as well as 'Stalker Ending' exist. I haven't been able to find a video of it through Youtube, Google or Dailymotion. 86.176.185.239 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to show such links. You can't piggyback onto existing refs to try to add validity to your newly-introduced nonsense. But don't bother looking for videos, as they cannot be used as citations, as I mentioned above. --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As there are so many links form a Google search, I will just post the first 3 links given by Google (bar wikipedia itself): http://www.amazon.ca/Butterfly-Effect-2/dp/B000I2JTBQ , http://www.kelwick.karoo.net/TheUsher-Speaks2004/TheUsherSpeaks-ButterflyEffect.htm and http://video.barnesandnoble.com/DVD/The-Butterfly-Effect/Ashton-Kutcher/e/794043717321#TABS . Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you have to be an arsehole to others. You don't know something, you shouldn't attack others for knowing it. 86.177.123.31 (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of those links state there is a 25 second scene referred to as "Noon Day stalker" but it isn't listed as an alternate ending, nor is there anything to suggest that your description of it is actually what occurs in that 25 second scene. Finally, Wikipedia is not a compendium of every deleted or alternate scene on a DVD. The alternate endings are notable inasmuch as they are the director's preferred endings. Again, I'm removing it. Please do not continue to reinsert it unless there's a justfiable reason to include it. Stile4aly (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you would remove these things when you've not watched the DVD and/or scenes yourself! I was explaining the Stalker ending further as it was quite inadequately explained. As for your problem with the links, I explained there is currently no uploaded video I've found of the NDS scene but references to its existence. It was asked that I provided these links so I did. 86.176.118.137 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase WP:Verifiability, if a source can't be provided backing up this information, it shouldn't be included, regardless of whether or not it's true. Put another way, we need verifiability, not just accuracy. Thus far, verifiability has not been provided. Even if everyone reading this article knew about this ending, it still wouldn't be appropriate to include the information without a reliable source. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, that is a major failing. So even IF someone who had watched the DVD also came across this page and backed me up like you suggested, that still wouldn't be enough. I'm sure the UFO ending from Silent Hill got the same response. This is why Wikipedia, the McDonalds of Google searches, is looked down on. I'm not gonna bother editing again, nor am I gonna trust a word Wikipedia says about subjects, for they now appear inaccurate (in which I knew some cases they were!). Shame. Goodbye. 86.176.189.170 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They Both Notice each other in the End.

Some say at the end the film Evan notices her and lets her go, but i think she knew who he was already, but they failed to make contact, maybe because they were afraid to talk to each other. Does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't expect any talk about content here, it appears the people who've put themselves 'in charge' of editing the page haven't even watched the film or relevant parts. For example: The 'discussion' (as in someone correctly editing and maturely discussing the film and getting attacked by idiots who obviously haven't watched it) above this one. 86.179.145.21 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Panty thief/stalker ending and discussion

Wow. I was going to mention something but I see it has already been 'discussed' while being edited in, then out, then in, then taken out etc. etc. and you guys have been totally abusive yet never even seen the DVD. WTF?

Well if it means anything come from a lowly regular internet user such as myself who dared to actual watch the thing, the guy isn't a troll and anyone who's watched the DVD will know he's talking perfect sense.

What a bunch of ignorant hypocrite trolls. 109.155.37.36 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

And do you have a reliable source for this, or are you just chiming in to flame people who take issue with original research? Because that wouldn't be very civil of you. Doniago (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I WATCHED THE DVD. Get it into your thick skulls! It is right there! That's pretty original research and a rather reliable source don't you think???

I suppose you couldn't put 'during daytime on Earth, the sky is usually blue' until someone put it on a random website as a 'source'. *facepalm*

BTW it looks like the regulars were the ones chiming in and insulting for no reason. But I guess they're allowed to. 109.155.37.36 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

When you're more interested in being civil perhaps other editors will be more interested in seriously considering what you have to say? Seriously, if you want your opinions to be respected, why not address others respectfully?

"I saw it on the DVD" isn't a reliable source. I could just as easily say "There's an alternate ending where Ashton Kutcher's character turns into a unicorn and flies away. I know this because I saw it on the DVD." Find a third party reliable source that discusses this information and then it will be considered appropriate for inclusion.

Until someone's willing and able to actually provide a reliable source for this information, it should not be included per WP:OR. Have a nice day. Doniago (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup 109.155.37.36. It is futile because, as you can see, they'll cry when they receive the respect they gave out in the first place. The major issue for me isn't even that it can't be added, it's the mass of abuse I received for senisbly writing some additional information. No need to back me up though, we and thousands (millions?) who have actually watched the DVD know it's there. That its very existence in this universe is not proof enough for the oh-so-highly-respected Wikipedia (tongue->cheek) is hilarious. They'll go on about 'Civility' and whore links in words because they're so out of touch with real life, but how can others follow rules they don't follow themselves? Pity these sad, anti-social hermits...least because they haven't even watched it! Oscy (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that the above comment was added by an IP but appears to be signed by a non-IP, the discussion appears to have little to do with actually improving the article, and the continued inability to address me (or anyone else) with civility, I have nothing further to add to this conversation. Doniago (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet you replied. Nuff said. ~ Oscy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.79.12 (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)