Talk:A Scanner Darkly (film)

Striver
Something has to be done about this guy. I am not going to get into an edit war, or risk violating the 3RR policy, but his continuing campaign to put these irrelevant Alex Jones links in the article has grown tiresome. ---Charles 05:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a source, sourcing is not irrelevant.--Striver 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a source considered relevant only by you. You have set yourself up as the unofficial representative for Alex Jones on Wikipedia, pushing his ideas every chance you get.  He has a small role in the film, beyond that, his opinions about the movie are no more relevant than any other self-appointed critic.  His ideas and opinions do not have wide currency or acceptance, and his interpretation of the movie is no more important than any random blogger.  We had a long discussion on this very issue on this talk page, as you well know, and you were outvoted by a considerable margin.  Yet, you go on, inserting this information.  Enough already. ---Charles 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * when the producer Tommy Pallotta screened segments of A Scanner Darkly at Jones's L.A. 9/11 Truth Conference, the director, Richard Linklater, has been interviewed by Jones regarding how he associates real life with the movie, and how he was inspired by some of Jones's core ideologies, and how "wining over" Bruce Willis to the Truth Movement and the music composer Graham Reynolds helped Jones in his movie TerrorStorm, then i see strong arguements for not saying that he is only "relevant to me" in the context of this movie.--Striver 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sick of arguing about this with you. Clearly it is your intention to use every opportunity you can to act as a representative for Jones and his ideas on Wikipedia, and to push that POV at every turn.  I happen to think that it is inappropriate.  This movie has little or nothing to do with Jones---even if Linklater and the producer are influenced by Jones, the movie is based on a book by Philip K. Dick, not a book by Alex Jones.  And, to be quite frank, Bruce Willis has nothing to do with anything. ---Charles 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is indeed pretty sad. "Trivia" is being used as an excuse for spamming Jones' crackpottery. "Prisonplanet.com" being used as an encyclopedia source, how blatant can policy violations get? Weregerbil 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus appears to be against Striver's edits. I have reverted his latest changes.  Please keep an eye on the talk page as well as the main article. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The movies director showing it before release in Jones syposium, while Jones showed his film, Jones being in this film, and the music maker of this film doing the music in Jones film is not relevant to this article? --Striver 13:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. Weregerbil 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not, WereGerbil? It's just as relevant if not even more so than the poster of June of 44 in the background of one scene and the song "Teen Angst" being in the trailer, both of which are in this article without dispute. --208.127.64.127 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler
Who in the world put the spoiler on the main page? You can read something that short if you just look at it. By the time your SPOILER ALARM goes off, you've already gathered all the information that spoils the movie. Maybe something should be done about this, like spoilers being put on separate pages. ~Eric: A Guy Fed Up With SPOILERS All Over The Place &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.52.181 (talk • contribs).
 * I tend to agree, but when we look up about a movie or book, we should expect to see something that we may not want to. Wikipedia isn't out to protect the innocent you know :p  M@$+  @   Ju  ~  ♠  00:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, that pretty much sucked. I believe somebody probably wrote it like that just to spoil everything for people. Anyways, I didn't even notice the spoiler warning until I'd already read it. How about if it actually introduced the plot and the world before giving away the ending to a movie that's not even out yet. I came here to learn about the animation technique they used... 220.10.60.165 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe somebody who has read the book can fill in the plot summary better. As it is, I simply moved the spoiler tag down one sentence, but I had trouble deciding which sentence is really a spoiler. Is the fact of Fred's profession common knowledge? Xaxafrad 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cast: Winona Ryder	Donna / Hank IMHO This is spoiler!

I quote from the Spoiler page, "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." --HockeyInJune (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
Trivia should be clarified. A French film based upon the relatively obscure (non-SF) Dick novel Confessions of a Crap Artist was released in the early 90s, if I recall correctly. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beckettwatt (talk • contribs).


 * I think the trivia section on short vs long stories should be removed (or moved elsewhere): of the 7 films made, 4 based on shorts (screamers; minority report; total recall; paycheck) vs 3 based on full-length novels (bladerunner; scanner darkly, confessions) is not a significant majority, and not of direct relevance to this film. -- Jon Dowland 16:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed "*World premiere on Sunday, April 30 at Brandeis University followed by a special screening with producer Erwin Stoff" from trivia -- this page indicates the film was shown as a "sneak peak" at SXSW 2006, and event organizers at Brandeis also called that showing a "sneak peak." If Scott Feinberg (whose IP performed the original edit) disagrees, he can perhaps offer evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.64.212.108 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

I second this and I'm removing it again. Rick had several 'sneak previews' of the film before and after this date. Official 'world premieres' are typically held red-carpet style in Hollywood or New York and segway in to the upcoming release of the film (for marketing purposes). On Tommy's blog he refers to the official 'world premiere' as the screening at Cannes. Either way this info is fairly irrelevant to the film and it's actual release date in July.

Some inaccuracies in this section: 1. The scanner operator appears to be wearing a pair of Philips headphones, not Philco. This can be demonstrated easily by artfully effacing part of the Philips logo to remove the second I, S, and lower part of the P. The design of the headphones is clearly a Philips product. A similar logo appears on Barris's (Cochrane's) calculator watch, reading "Philip" 2. Donna Hawthorne (Ryder) mentions a theft from her place of business as a direct parallel to her statement in the book: "...this customer, this old guy, gray hair, who bilked us out of ten bucks- [my boss] said it was my fault..." The parallel with Ryder's own history may or may not be as relevant as stated.

Also, does anyone see a connection between the American flag hung from the ceiling in this film with the one in Donnie Darko?

Another incidence of a brand-name appearance - the logo 'DUNN' appears on Barris's voice recorder; this seems to be a reference to the German phrase 'dick und dunn'... 64.212.128.3 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance?
What is the reason for including this sentence in the trivia section? "During the tow truck scene, the crew is going north on Highway 5 through Irvine and passing by the Tustin Market Place. "

Alex Jones
Somebody is removing Alex Jones from the list of actors. He is extra-notable for the very reason the person is removing him: he is such a controversial character. It is imposible for film makers to have known his controversial nature, and still have employed him: in the contrary: the fact that he has such a rightues anti-conspiratorial role in the movie proves that the movie makers knew of hin controversial nature, and aproved of it, if not even agreed with him. The web-link is to Alex Jones privat conspiracy-web page where it expreses how the film is a "slap in the face" of a actual real conspiracy.¨

Dont remova that as non-notable, your fearce determination of removing him proves how notable, and in fact: controversial he is. --Striver 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is also notable that Charlie Sheen went to Alex Jones to declare "questions" regarding the events of 9/11, something that became very controversial. --Striver 20:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no, this is becoming another Alex Jones page :-( Now we have a bit player misrepresented as a star, his loony opinions as "trivia" about the movie, and his self-published web site (in violation of reliable source policy) as a source.
 * And my removing him is because he is not a notable actor in this movie. If you added the name of the guy who washed the windows of the building where this movie was made I would remove that.
 * Conspiracypedia, the crufty soapbox anyone can vandalize. Weregerbil 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that Alex Jones also appears in Linklater's other rotoscope film Waking Life makes him more or less relevant to the film: especially with regards to this being an interpolationon the director's part which distinguishes it from the novel. The film A Scanner Darkly is an example of Linklater's art as much as it's a film version of Dick's novel, and Linklater's influences, especially in a film with these sorts of themes, are important to note, I think.203.206.249.161 13:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weregerbil, Alex Jones is not some stand-by looser waiting to catch any movie side-roll that is thrown at him, he is working 24/7 on his views and his radio show. He is a extremly controversial person, and subscribing to his views will cause you to becom labeled a "conspiracy-nut-bag" by Hanity and Colmes and others (like you?), just as it happened to Charlie. It is no small mater and no conincidence that the people making this film made the concious decision to add him to this movie. It is at least "trivia" to add that. I would prefer much more, but that would be adding undue weight. You maybe view that prison planet is not a reliable source for world events, but it is a reliable source for a Alex's view of a movie that he was a part of. Dont pretend that the movie makers dont endorse his views, when deciding to give him a part, doing exactly the same thing he does in real life, exposing the criminal government. That merits one or two external links sections, it is nothing more than normal to expect people to be intrested of the views of such a controversial character, and his views of this movie in particular, and the links put that one click away withtout giving undue weith to the article.


 * Im not going to write anything about the movies makers views of Alex views, but Alex views are for sure more notable than "A long-running rumor suggested that Radiohead was composing the score for this film. This is untrue" As for your "If you added the name of the guy who washed the windows of the building where this movie was made I would remove that", is that an insult towards me and my work? --Striver 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your question: no, that is not an insult (please see WP:AGF) (it's odd how some people seem to get insulted so easily. There is absolutely nothing you could ever say to insult me.) It is an answer to your reasoning "removing Jones proves he is controversial and therefore notable and must remain." By that reasoning anyone in the world is notable: mention a window washer, someone removes him, that "proves" he is controversial and must remain! Removal of a non-notable bit part player is not proof that he is controversial. (By the way, controversial does not equal notable.) Weregerbil 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the content is about the film and reliably sourced, I don't see a problem. I am concerned about the external links section, however, and following the lead of several editors (such as Rory096) I suggest that any link not referencing content directly be removed from the article.  The only thing that should appear in the external links section is the IMDB entry and possibly an official site. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the external link, may i ask why only limit it to those two mentioned and not include other links directly concerned with this movie? --Striver 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for any other links, other than those two. The rest should reference content in the article and link in the references section.  This will encourage people to use reliable citations and avoid linkfarming. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, dont you agree that the view of one of the actors regarding this movie is notable enough to warant a external link? Not even if the view is controversial? --Striver 08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the external links section is subject to abuse, and the best way to keep it under control, is to use the notes/references section, so that every external link must reference actual content, as well as be reliable. That's all I'm saying.  I have no interest in arguing about content.  If the link is used as a cite, and it meets the requirements for WP:RS, there isn't a problem. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So what was the consensus here? Currently, the article mentions the political views of one of the minor characters (Jones) in the trivia section, and includes 2 links to Jones' self-published (WP:RS??) website about the film. To me, these links add little value to the article other than promoting Jones himself. --mtz206 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the bit about him in the trivia section should stay, but the two links should go. They add nothing to an understanding of the film, and if we are going to have two articles on the perceived "political implications" of this film, it opens the door to posting other links to other people's opinions on the issue.  Where would it end? ---Charles 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a reliable soure of what Jones belives. And a character in that role would not be notable in many cases, but Jones "special" views make him notable, and having him in a mainstream movie, in a role so close to his real life role, makes it notable and thus relevant to the movie article. It is just impossible for the movie makers to have missed who Jones is and what message it gives having him in the movie--Striver 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That might justify his mention in the trivia, but why two links to his website? Seems very much outside the WP:EL guidelines. If the makeup artist has "special" views (whatever that means), should we provide links to his/her blog as well? Don't think these links are appropriate, let alone necessary. --mtz206 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I argue that if those views are very peculiar, to the point of being called a lunatic, and if the guy spents all his time working on those views, making it more than a side time activity, and the "blog" entries deal specificly with this single movie and its conection to those views, then i argue that two links is not to much, specialy considering that the "blog" entries are on a very well visited site. --Striver 08:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So, did we not agree that the two links to Alex Jones webpage should go? 'Cause I see that they are still here, and I am trying to figure out why. Can I delete them already? ---Charles 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say go ahead. This is an article about a movie, not a soapbox link farm of someone who voices a bit part in it. The Jones spam is best trimmed down. Weregerbil 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Graham Reynolds
In the music section, there's a biographic section on Graham Reynolds. Though it does have its place in the Wikipedia, this article is not it. I suggest (and therefore have added a split tag) that it is split into its own article; if there is no argument against, I'll do so. –Dvandersluis 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Big thumbs up for volunteering to originate Graham Reynolds. But when the tag said "split," I began thinking somebody wanted the Music section moved out (deleted? not when it's on-article). I'd prefer the term "fork," it feels more accurate. (Sorry for nitpicking, don't take it too seriously.) Xaxafrad 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I specifically reworked that section so that the tag was in front of only the paragraph on Reynolds – I assumed that was the correct way to do it? I didn't see a tag for 'forking', so I'm sorry if I used the wrong one. And don't worry, no offense taken ;) –Dvandersluis 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be it's own artcle, as long as we're willing to live w/ a stub. the cheat 23:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a stub is better than a misplaced section... ;) –Dvandersluis 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comment. Stub is fine by me, not on the Article. --67.162.4.91 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's been more than 2 days, the movie has now been released, and there's been no response against the idea. I'm splitting off the section. –Dvandersluis 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the split; it seems the new article has been established, so the old para can be removed. -- Jon Dowland 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Business
Ok, this is my favorite movie of all time. Love it to death. I'm actually drawing upon it for inspiration for a novel I'm writing (I'm unpublished, however.) No spoilers or details however. But anyway, as much as I love it and as many times as I have seen it, I don't understand what was up with the "Bruce" thing at the end of the movie. I'm pretty sure that's Bob but why do they call him Bruce, then? I mean, I understand the thing about calling him Fred, yeah. But whats with this "Bruce" business at the end? 24.14.152.62 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

!!!???
That is f***ing confusing! He is going to 'catch himself'? Why not just turn himself in!? Tinlv7 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel so stupid. The whole split personality thing meant that he was only 'himself' half the time Tinlv7 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot needs re-working
Yea...the plot there is somewhat correct, but I thought it was deeper than that, granted I've only seen the movie once. I thought that for some reason, Fred/Bob Arctor was made (as in forced. they kept on saying "he didn't volunteer...") to become this undercover cop with the hopes of catching drug dealers and their sources( ie Barris). The thing about this undercover job is that while at work, he dons a "person-shifting" suit. In other words, the police do not know who this person in the suit really is, they only know his codename, Fred. Meanwhile, Bob, the non-cop, becomes addicted to substance D and befriends of Barris. The police become aware of the two's activities and have no idea that Bob is one of there own men (Fred in the suit). So essentially, yes, Fred is setup to catch Bob, AKA himself. Notice the difference though. Fred is the cop at work with the suit assigned to catch criminals, and Bob is the real drug-addicted acquaintence of Barris. However, they are the SAME person.

Barris is arrested at the end. Fred/Bod Arctor was taken in to the rehabilitation on more friendly terms. Donna, who is also undercover, brought him there because she knew how bad substance D (and its withdrawl symptomes) could be. She wanted him to get better, and return to how he saw things before substance D. Until then, he must work on a type of plantation, sponsored by the rehab. I got the impression that this was prison-like work (cells, warden, labor-intensive work). While there, he also finds the substance D flowers being grown on the ground in between the corn rows. The rehab place is producing the same drug that its patients are trying to quit.

well thats all ive got to say about that. Sorry its choppy, but if you've seen the movie, you'd know what I mean. Please reply for additions (for which im sure there are many) and corrections. Then maybe someone will re-write the plot section. Teimu.tm 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The authorities were never after Arctor. To some extent they were after Baris. But the main point was that they wanted to get Arctor to take so much Substance D that he would have brain damage, and be accepted to work on a New Path farm. That's what Arctor didn't vollunteer for. --58.107.196.244 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Shortening or making more concise? I hope that was a standard template or whoever wrote it had to be kidding. Isn't Freck actually Mike? Of course Donna and Audrey are the same person! However, the idea of bringing the girl a blue flower suggested by the medical staff seems to be planting the idea of retreiving the sample/evidence, which suggests that they are also part of the counter-conspiracy conspiracy. Now the real question: Who really is Ernie Luckman? --Hrimpurstala (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Barris Did not work undercover, Neither did freck. Barris was driven insane because he thought they were watching and messing with him rather than arctor. Thats why he submitted fake evidence to the police, which was their plan all along. They could not prove that he was high up in the substance d line, so the caused him to commit a crime that was completely diffrent.

Conkern65 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

^"... its withdrawl" from my take there was to be no withdrawal... and http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=5141433#post5141433 Jamison2000e (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue with Main Page Plot
I have something to add RE: the plot summary on the main page. At the end it says that Bruce realizes that the flower is being used to make Substance D, and therefore saves one for his friends. I got the impression that he was conditioned, through those verses he was reciting, to be facinated by blue flowers, and to keep one for his friends. So therefore he might not have made the connection between the flower and the drug, he was merely executing his programming. Also, the issue with his left and right brain seemed to me to be the reason he was able to go through the New Hope conditioning but still have a chance to have that conditioning about the blue flowers remain lodged in his subconscious. They had to plant the conditioning in a non-normal mind in order to have a chance at discovering the Farm's secrets. THX... - k2 11:41 PM 07/23/06


 * I agree. I think that his conditioning to buy blue flowers for his friends was what triggered it, which was the point of the conditioning.  They knew that he was going to be drug addled and unlikely to make a connection in any other way.  Aristoi 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Differences between the movie and book section?
It would be great if there was a small section for this. I haven't read the book in a long time, so I couldn't write it. The book and movie articles have some of the exact same text, which is actually pretty informative, but the movie and book aren't exactly the same. I think the tone was different and obviously the movie was shortened, simplified and updated. Foday 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The section's beed added. I've read the novel and seen the movie, and I don't understand how you could think the tone was different. Unless you're talking about the novel's 1970s hippie slang that wasn't in the movie; other than that, the tone seemed identical to me in both. The novel's themes of drug abuse, paranoia, police surveillance, the blurred line between the drug world and police agencies, the questioning of reality, and human behavior in extreme situations all made it into the film. DT29 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This statement doesn't make sense: ''The novel, published in 1977, takes place in 1994. The film takes place in 2013, assuming the "seven years from now" setting is in relation to the film's 2006 release date.''


 * To make it more clear, I've changed it to: The novel, published in 1977, takes place in 1994. The film opens with a "seven years from now" text, placing it in 2013, assuming the setting is in relation to the film's 2006 release date. DT29 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

End Credits
Are the names of the people from the novel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AzzAz (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Your question can be interpreted in different ways. The names are found in the afterword ("Author's Note") of the novel.  If you are asking if the names in the afterword (end credits in the film) correspond with the names of the characters, there is very little information.  They were certainly real people that PKD knew, but it is just as likely that the characters in the novel and film are nothing more than an amalgamation of the real people, including PKD himself.  There are a few instances where we have information about people in Dick's life and characters in the book, but my best guess (and I could be wrong) is that the names were changed to protect their privacy. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unknowingly?
"Unknowingly, Arctor had been selected to carry out the sting." Unknown to whom?? (or is it who). --Gbleem 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unknowingly to his superiors. They do not know who is in the suit, only that he/she has integrated themselves into Arctor's circle of friends, and that he has access to the house. Of course, we know that Fred is in fact Bob, but nobody else could. So unknowingly to his superiors, Fred is selected to carry out the survailence on Bob, on himself.Colossus 86 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Release Date
I take it the release dates given are for the US. Anyone know: (When) is it coming to the UK? Ben davison 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Google, UK limited release is set for August 18. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick references in the movie
The trivia section mentioning Phil D. on headphones and the Blade Runner script could be part of a new section if other Philip K. Dick references in the movie are found.--Undertow87 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

500 hours / min animation
I think this, regardless of it's citation, is bogus.

At an approximate 90 min run time, that's 90 min * 500hours/min = 45,000 (min) hours/min = 45,000 hours

Now, 45,000 is reasonably close to 48,000 hours, which is exactly 2000 days.

This indicates that the movie was in production for over six years.


 * Yes, only one person worked on this entire movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As it was originally played in 2004, this dictates the original filming must have taken place in 1998

The movie itself was filmed with the [The Panasonic AG-DVX100], and from its page: The AG-DVX100, introduced in late 2002...

As such, this information is drastically faulty.

The only reasonble way to draw the number back to cause a 2 year difference, 2:6 = 1/3, or a 66.7% decrease in the initial claim to make it fit within a forced timeline.

I request this information be double checked and upon the findings either deleted or elaborated upon.

>Aren't they talking about 'man hours', ie. 1 person does it it takes as long as you say, if two people work on it it takes half as long, etc. They would have had a wholeteam working on the animation.

There was about 18 months post-production on this movie with around 30+ animators Woof69 13:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A Second Alex Jones Cameo
I'm not getting involved in your anti-Alex Jones squabbles, but I just wanted to note that I added this to the trivia. If you don't believe me you can look at the movie, yourself. The only thing is that I'm not sure if I got the magazine's quote down correctly:

--208.127.64.150 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, at one point towards the beginning of the film, the screen 'fast forwards' as Jim Barris and Freck enter a gas station shop. Very briefly a police officer can be seen reading a magazine that quotes "Alex Jones Runs for Office" on the cover.

A SCANNER DARKLY WOW WHAT A NAME --200.94.141.3 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Donna=Hank?
"In the film, 'Hank' is revealed to be Donna. In the novel, Hank's identity is never explicity revealed, only hinted at." What are the hints? FilipeS 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When Bob (in disguise as Fred) says he has two kids, Hank says "I don't think you do. You're not supposed to." This implies that Hank is someone Bob knows personally, and that Bob has lied to his friends, telling them he has no kids. Later on we find out Donna is a narcotics agent, and Donna knows Bob, so put two and two together. DT29 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting 5. :D Hank could have simply meant that undercover agents such as him weren't supposed to have children (for security reasons). FilipeS 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem likely. It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, but in the novel Bob doesn't know what Hank meant by "not supposed to." DT29 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But another possible interpretation is that Hank simply had Bob watched. Perhaps all undercover agents were secretly under surveillance. FilipeS 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A Scanner Darkly Poster.jpg
Image:A Scanner Darkly 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use rationale added 09:11, 25 May 2007. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
I trimmed this pretty savagely; anything restored would have to be encyclopedic and sourced. I think the article looks better now. --John 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:D059418.jpeg
Image:D059418.jpeg 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 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 06:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

citation needed?
The title is a reference to a verse in the New Testament of the Bible, 1 Corinthians: 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly." Why is this statement likely to be challenged? It says where you can find it in the Bible, and the relevance is obvious to any educated reader. Please cf the Grapes of Wrath entry, where it is taken as self-evident that the "grapes of wrath" in the Battlehymn of the Republic is a biblical reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference given in the article on the eponymous book. — Xavier, 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Invisible Cloak
Towards the end of the Plot, the articles says that the blue flowers are "hidden through an invisible cloak." The movie does not explicitly say this, it only vaguely implies that something is hiding the flowers. The dialog proceeds as follows: Bob says "The flower is gone," and the man who seems to be a big shot for the Substance D industry replies, "No, you just can't see them." While this is an important element of the plot, it needs to be restated to follow the movie a bit more strictly and to cut conjecture down to a minimum.

--HockeyInJune (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Production budget inconsistency
The third paragraph of Post-production problems states the budget for the film was increased to $8.7m, however, the first paragraph of Reception states the film earned back its $6m budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.151.181 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the first paragraph of Reception to state the film did not make back its production budget and the clarify its grossings in the USA and elsewhere.

Has the film made a profit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.29 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These are only box office figures. A lot of movies make money from tv rights and dvd sales.

Year of Scanner Darkly ?
I like to know in which year the story of a Scanner Darkly takes place. For example the Blade Runner story is set to the year 2019, Surrogates to 2017, Demolition Man is in 2032, I, Robot in 2035 and Total Recall is set to 2084. --Solphusion (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The film opens with a text saying "seven years from now," which would place it in 2013 if you assume that this is in relation to the film's 2006 release date. But the director, Richard Linklater, has said in interviews that he didn't mean "seven years from now" literally. In this interview he says, "We'll just say, vaguely, seven years from now. But I didn't want to put a date on it, because that date does eventually come. ... [Scanner] will be just perpetually out of reach in front of us." And in this interview he says, "Scanner is set 'seven years from now,' but that really means right now — the post–9/11 world of surveillance." (DT29 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Its Seven Years from the present. Right now it would be 2017, but in 2011 it would be 2018. Its just seven plus to the current date.

Conkern65 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot length
Per WP:MOSFILM, film plot sections (barring complicated films) should be between 400 and 700 words; the previous version was far in excess. This is not a complicated film, thus it must be trimmed down; my version does achieve that. --M ASEM (t) 16:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

SHOULD be, not MUST be. The superior synopsis stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.46.83 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The plot involves several characters-within-characters and as such many viewers find it confusing, especially after only one viewing. The current synopsis explains the film in detail. Just because some wiki page makes a suggestion about synopsis length does not mean it has to be followed. The content is fine. If this "Masem" person is incapable of digesting more than 700 words, or perhaps incapable of coping with the existence of a wiki page that doesn't gel with their own personal interpretation of a random suggestion, then he / she / it really needs to see a doctor. Really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.46.83 (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is missing from the shorter synopsis that is otherwise covered from the larger one that is a key part of the plot of the movie for the encyclopedic reader to understand?  And yes, while it is "should", the allowance is only there when plots of films can be difficult to understand due to things like time travel or the like. This film does not have those types of elements.
 * Furthermore, I do recognize that the film itself is confusing to first time viewers (it was to me) due to the alternate identified from the suits, the unusual animation style, etc. But we're here to summarize the core aspects of the film. There's only about 5-6 main characters at all, and there is a layered set of deceptions done, but they are easily explained in the short version. --M ASEM  (t) 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Masem. The plot section is supposed to be a summary, not a comprehensive retelling of the film, this level of detail seems unnecessary. - SudoGhost 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The longer synopsis makes more sense. masem and sudoghost are both wrong. There is nothing wrong with the synopsis, so leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviebob (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC) WP:MOSFILM is a "suggestion", and it's not even a particularly good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviebob (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And that "suggestion" is agreed with by multiple editors, so you'll need a WP:CONSENSUS and at the very least an explanation as to why you think it shouldn't be followed here. - SudoGhost 19:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who agrees with a suggestion, nor how many - a suggestion is just that; a suggestion. It does NOT have to be followed, it is entirely optional, suggestions can be freely ignored.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviebob (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It does matter who agrees, and unless you establish a consensus that it doesn't apply here it cannot be ignored, especially not without good reason. - SudoGhost 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a suggestion: it is a MOS, with some times allowance for ignoring all rules. The fundamental aspects of this plot are not lost with the smaller summary, so IAR doesn't apply here; the summary must meet the MOS requirements. --M ASEM (t) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we have some more comments here? Look at Masem's "improvement":

"Barris suspects Archor and Donna as part of a terrorist organization"

Who is "Archor"? And who is the terrorist here?

"he struggles to determine his true identity: at one point he believes he has a wife and two daughters, while at another, believes him to be single."

This doesn't make sense.

"Barris tries to provide fake evidence to the police to accuse Arctor and Donna as terrorists"

More execrable English.

This guy can't even write. It's pretty much vandalism. The old plot synopsis was literate and intelligent - and just long enough to adequately explain this complicated film. I'm going to keep reverting because there is no "consensus" on Wikipedia in favour of vandalism and illiteracy.

NB: I stumbled across this page as a reader. Phlebas55 (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Calling something that isn't vandalism "vandalism" is going to get you blocked. Nor is calling someone else illiterate (that's a personal attack) Reverting that much change because, for example, there's one typo ("Archor" vs "Arctor"), is definitely not acceptable.
 * Secondly, it is not a complicated film in terms of plot, when you discuss it from an out-of-universe perspective. When you view it the first time, heck yes it's hard to known who's who, but we don't write as a unknowing viewer, we write knowing what the conclusion of the film is, and thus can tell parts in non-linear order to make the plot concise. --M ASEM (t) 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This film is not actually that complicated, it was markedly simplified from the source novel. A ~700 word summary should be more than enough to summarise its events. It's worth noting that thematic concerns do not need to be addressed in a plot summary and can be, with secondary sourcing, expanded and explained in their own section; this leaves the word limit to describe events only. GRAPPLE   X  12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

>Nor is calling someone else illiterate

The "Archor" typo is the smallest solecism that I pointed out. It's still terrible writing...embarrassing to see people defending this on Wikipedia.

>We don't write as a unknowing viewer

The film isn't necessarily fresh in the reader's mind; they mightn't even have watched it at all. The reader matters, not you. And having read the book and watched the film a while back, my reaction to glancing over this synopsis was WTF.

>It's worth noting that thematic concerns do not need to be addressed in a plot summary and can be, with secondary sourcing, expanded and explained in their own section; this leaves the word limit to describe events only.

What's the point? It's fine as it was. And just because thematic concerns "can be" expanded doesn't mean they will be. The most likely result is that the current illiterate and confusing plot synopsis will stay there indefinitely, because it requires more effort to write a decent article than it does to tear apart other people's good work. Congratulations Wiki-lawyers! Phlebas55 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of complaining that the shorter summary is "illiterate and confusing", why not take the longer one you preferred, truncate it down to guideline length by omitting needless details, minor subplots or thematic elements, and post it up instead. Would easily solve the issue if your efforts went in a productive direction. GRAPPLE   X  13:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a far cry between typos and awkward wording that can be corrected by anyone (without having to revert to an improper form), and calling an editor illiterate. Poor writing can be fixed, and is not an excuse to avoid meeting guidelines on plot length. --M ASEM  (t) 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the old synopsis myself to 679 words - properly written. It's not that I don't appreciate the benefit of concision, and Wikipedia's guidelines - but it's no good for someone to enforce obscure and somewhat unimportant rules whilst simultaneously wrecking the quality of an article. If you're a stickler for rules, you should be an even greater stickler for quality. Phlebas55 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I copyedited your new version to meet MOS, removing contractions, exclamation marks, curly quotes and fixing hyphens to dashes. GRAPPLE   X  16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Although I don't see the harm in "!"! Phlebas55 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's about the tone it creates; a factual encyclopaedic tone really should avoid things like exclamation marks, rhetorical questions or the like. GRAPPLE   X  17:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Scanner Darkly (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-scannerdarkly7jul07%2C0%2C5662926.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050713081117/http://www.philipkdick.com/films_scanner.html to http://www.philipkdick.com/films_scanner.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The prescience of PKD

 * The revelation that New Path is providing both the drugs and the cure for addiction is depressingly similar to the real opioid epidemic in America.

See also:
 * The family behind OxyContin looked into profiting from solving the crisis they helped cause (2019). Quote: "Project Tango...was a scheme, in short, to profit from solving the same crisis that the Sacklers and Purdue helped cause...The company briefly ditched the idea in 2014...But since then, the Sackler family and Purdue have considered offering formulations of the opioid overdose antidote naloxone and the opioid addiction medication buprenorphine, which is, along with methadone, viewed as the gold standard for opioid addiction treatment."
 * The Prescience of A SCANNER DARKLY (2019). Quote: "As the plot unfurls, it piles on layers of identity, camouflaging intentional obfuscation of powers that be. Powerful entities use characters for their own gain, baiting them against their own well-being while going to great lengths to hide their motivations, and simply shrugging off ethical concerns and grey areas. In one especially prescient parallel, lawsuits accuse the Sackler family of essentially creating the current opioid crisis through misleading and aggressive marketing of OxyContin. With episodes like this constantly [in] the news, questioning of the well-intentionedness of power and authority is beyond de rigeur and actually just sensible."

More should be said about this given 1) the prescience of PKD is a significant topic in PKD-related studies, and 2) provided there are enough good sources to add this material to the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)