Talk:American History X/Archive 1

Synopsis
The synopsis seems to be confusing, longer than necessary and in a number of places incorrect. I'm going to try and tidy it up and clarify it a little, bit by bit. I'll probly make mistakes, I'm not a particularly prolific editor and the way the film jumps around doesn't make a simple plot easy. --Jasonisme 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we remove basically all the detailed quotes? That's what wikiquote is for, i.e. we don't need to get into the details about Dennis Vineyard's "affirmative blaction" speech when I copied it over there.

Pretty good condensation, although it's conversely a little too lean (doesn't even mention that Danny had to write a paper on the events, that Dr. Sweeney intervened to help Derek's parole, or that the night Derek murdered the carjackers was the same day Doris kicked him out of the house for fighting with Murray a few hours before, all pretty significant events.) I'd almost lean towards including a characters section too...

Cleanup
Does this still need cleanup? Rd232 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can think of something that is missing, no.
 * How did Edward Norton re-edit the film against Tony Kaye's permission? He was just an actor!  Did he pull important strings with the producers or something?  --I am not good at running 06:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, it was more of an issue between Tony Kaye's artistic vision and what the producers wanted the film to be. --68.45.21.204 04:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The controversy section is unfortunately worded, and the opinions expressed about editing practices have no basis in reality.Trst 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I belive Dani says something like "Derek would have done life if I HADN"T testified". The synopsis says the opposite.  Megs July 17, 2008  21:11  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganw3202 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong part in synopsis?
"Danny continually complains that his new founded neo-Nazi ways have nothing to do with his big brother Danny, but Dr. Sweeney rebukes him and sends him on his way"

Should Danny be replaced with Derek in one of those places? I haven't seen the movie; I was reading the article to see if it was worth watching, but this part seemed contradictory- how is Danny's older brother named Danny? -VetteDude 19:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah good one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.59.251 (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Minor Correction
The tattooed swastika was on Derek's left pectoral, not right. Correcting... Screen capture: http://picnic.ciao.com/fr/162808.jpg

66.93.100.117 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC) -PR

Alternative Ending
"An original scripted, but unfilmed, ending consisted of Derek shaving his head and reverting back to his neo-Nazi skinhead ways after the death of his brother."

Is it possible that this triva bit isn´t entirly true? I could swear that I´ve seen the movie with this ending. FreddyE 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just removed reference to this in the "Deleted scenes" section for the following reasons. Firstly no such scene was ever filmed, so it couldn't be considered deleted in the first place. Secondly no such scene is in the linked shooting script. Thirdly in the final scene Danny clearly says "what have I done", meaning that his first instinct isn't that the path away from racism should now be reversed, but that he sees the responsibility for what happening to his brother as being a consequence of the path that Danny followed Derek down. Fourthly it doesn't seem that anyone involved in the making of the film has ever made reference to any such scene. Lastly it's just un-encyclopaedic to make reference to unsubstantiated rumours. I may have heard a rumour from some guy I knew once that that in deleted scene from the Empire Strikes Back Darth Vader was to reveal himself as Luke's mother, replete with hair curlers underneath her helmet, but I shouldn't try and include that nugget in an encyclopaedia. JMWhite 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
"Edward Norton's penis is exposed twice in the film: First at the start of the film, when he is having sex with his girlfriend (Balk) and again when he is in the prison showers, as Derek Vineyard is raped."

Is this really an item worthy of being on the Trivia list? I mean, what the hell is the point of it being here? Not only is it something that the viewer can notice easily themself, it really serves no significance whatsover. We don't see trivia about a woman's breasts being displayed however many times for other films, so this is really out of place. Conquerer 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I'm removing it. Kevin Hughes 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone's added to the trivia the rumour of the deleted scene/alternative ending I mentioned above. I'm removing it unless someone can cite a reputable reference showing this to be based in fact. As far as i can tell it's something bandied about by racist extremists without any evidence. An internet search yealds only mentions of this possibility on racist message boards - many of whom then reference wikipedia as proof. It has no place here JMWhite 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

However, Norton and Kaye, did campaign and spend over 1 million dollars of their own money to change the original ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.222.118 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the Film
I replaced the line that says that this film tells the story of Derek Vinyard some time after the LA Race Riots, because it's not entirely true. The scene in which the riots are mentioned seems to suggest that they had happened a relatively short time before that discussion; the fact that Derek's mom was dating (and combined with Danny's narrative) suggests that it was a good deal of time after the death of Derek's father (indicated by the radical change in appearance before and after his father's death, and the fact that he didn't begin his neo-naziism untl after his father's death). So, some of the scenes in the movie take place before the race riots. -Mance 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cadillac
Are you guys sure the green cadillac is the car the car jackers drove. It looked to me like the carjackers had a ford falcon or something, also those cadillacs have square headlights, while the jackers cars headlights are clearly round.

Fishy article
I'm unsure about some of the comments in the synopsis. I think some of them are unecessary. 'poor black kid from the ghetto', 'both white cops...smiles', etc. Needs to be reworked, or maybe I'm just reading a shitty revert. Panda

Lawsuit
So what happened with the lawsuit? Nil Einne 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * what lawsuit? --79.233.106.252 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot
I tagged the plot because it is overly long. It weighs in at 1,766 words, whereas the guidelines suggest no more than 900 words.--Supernumerary 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

there would never be a lawsuit nor could there be a lawsuit it's called freedom you have the right to put out whatever you feel needs to be put out i don't think this film is trying to be slanderous to anyone and you idiots should just drop the subject of how you hate it and how much you disagree with the message as you call it this is reality people are like this get over it least you could do is stop complaining

I have the movie and read the plot. It is long, but only because it has been exhaustively written down and researched. I don't think it does the article an injustice in its detail. The only things that could be done are to take out superfluous information like: "Derek then goes to school" (for example) if it can be combined with more telling plot points. Kaizer Souze (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes
I don't think the description of the third deleted scene is very accurate. The mother hardly whisks her kid away as soon as Derek begins to speak. Admittedly she seems a little nervous of him but I disagree with the wording - anyone else think it needs altering? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.139.234 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, see scene at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoBRsAW6QjI 69.113.7.9 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Curb scene
When, in the movie, did Norton ever tell the guy to bite the curb? Please, somebody, let me know the exact time and scene. You can't, because he never said it. I'm changing the phrasing.


 * He tells him to "Bite the curb" it is in fact part of the movie, so this was deleted without merit. CharlieP216 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the wording was, 'Put your mouth on the curb' but it shows the guy opening his mouth and putting his teeth on the curb in a biting position.

I belive it was "Put your lip on the curve" Paulchwd

I just watched the movie, still have the window up, and after watching the scene, the exact quote is, "Put your fucking mouth on the curb. PUT IT ON THE CURB RIGHT NOW!" About 54 minutes into the movie. Hakola 06:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Scene
Hey has anybody found any explanations on the final scene where Danny gets shot? I just think this is a significant scene from the movie so I was just wondering the purpose of it, and I think it would contribute very much to the article. Near the end of the movie you see Danny starting to change his ways and understand the hypocrisy and cons of the neo-nazi doctrine. And then he gets murdered by a black schoolmate simply because he blew smoke in his face. So what is this scene suppose to tell audiences? From what it seems to me it confirms the very prejudices that Danny had in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.94.55.91 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe the correct term is irony. Danny finally decides to not follow in his older brother's footsteps of breeding hatred and racism, which will eventually result in his demise. The irony? The very next day, the same day he decides to watch the sun rise for the first time in his life, his is extinguished by that very same thing. It's purpose was to drive home the point that racism and hatred are like the festering pocket of bacteria in the open wound of society. It itches, you scratch, and the wound grows.--Dannery4 05:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)dannery4

sigh* before anybody tries to go off on me calling me a racist/neo-nazi, keep in mind I'm stating this explantion not from my personal beliefs but from the context of the movie. I'm just adding this message here cause I know how some people can get somebody says something that isn't 100% anti-racist or politically correct.

i dont think you will be deemed as a racist for your question. i believe the scene was pivotal for two reasons: 1) it left us wondering if derek's reformation was in vain (would he revert), and 2) it showed that, like gang mentality, once you are out does not equate to a sense of safety. in the original treatment, derek re-shaves his head after this scene. The undertow 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted scenes
"After they eat, a black gang sneaks upon them and they attack them." Who is attacking whom? This sentence is ambiguous. Please clarify. --KnightMove 08:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

the black gang attacked cameron and seth

Trivia

 * The word "fuck" is spoken 205 times throughout the film.
 * The quote Danny says at the end of the film is from Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address in 1861.
 * Edward Norton packed on 30 pounds (14 kilograms) of muscle for the role.
 * Both Avery Brooks (Dr. Sweeny) and Jennifer Lien (Davina) starred on Star Trek series at the same time. (Brooks on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine from 1993 until 1999 as Captain Benjamin Sisko and Lien on Star Trek: Voyager from 1995 until 1997 as Kes.)
 * A white power song is heard that is set to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"; the song describes a massacre of non-whites and Jews, referring to it as "the tramplin' at the Zoo". It is an actual song by Johnny Rebel.
 * The shirt worn by Seth Ryan on the basketball court with the numbers "88" on the back is actually a reference to "HH" or "Heil Hitler," "H" being the 8th letter of the alphabet. In a later scene he wears a Skrewdriver T-shirt. The number is also a reference to the 88 Precepts, the 88 rules of conduct by which neo-Nazis live.
 * In the flashback where Norton's character starts learning racist ways from his father, he mentions that the book Native Son by Richard Wright was assigned in class by Dr. Sweeney. The 1940's book deals with how racial inequality leads to violence from the perspective of a poor 20-year old black man. Interestingly, both Native Son and its author were mentioned by Avery Brooks' character of Benjamin Sisko in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Far Beyond the Stars".
 * The overweight neo-Nazi character Seth is portrayed by Ethan Suplee. Suplee would later go on to play the happy-go-lucky race-blind football player Louie Lastik in the film Remember the Titans, which also focuses on racial tensions.
 * The pistol Derek uses in the beginning of the film to shoot the burgulars is part of the Ruger "P" series pistols and should carry a maximum of fifteen rounds with a high capacity magazine, and ten without, Derek fires 26 rounds without reloading throughout the sequence.

(saved here for contingent reconstruction in the article)

--KnightMove 14:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Take note!
I've added the forum template so please take notice. Wikipedia is not a forum. Ashnard  Talk  19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Song (sung by Seth)
Everyone probably knows the song from this movie if they've seen it, the "My eyes have seen the glory of..." thing, which was a remake of The Battle Hymn of the Republic (remade by Johnny Rebel). Should this be mentioned at all?  Zchris87v  05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the song really funny and wanted to show it to my friends for when we laugh at the stupid racist KKK (and general idiocy of mankind), but I couldn't find it in Johnny Rebel's lists of songs. Anyone got a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.166.64 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Gone in the Morning
The line in the synopsis which occasioned my ire was:


 * ...his mother gave him one day to pack his things and move out...

Well, here I am watching the flick and the dialog does not back up that line in any way. The verbatim exchange is:


 * DORIS: I want you out of this house.


 * DEREK: That's fine, I'll be gone in the morning.

Meanwhile, I broke the paragraph between the two critical scenes of dinner and shooting -- amazing that it originally tried to cram both into a single sentence.

Call it original research if you like but the former revision is just plain incorrect. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 15:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Races"
Why is the word races put in scare quotes ("races") in the plot summary? Last I looked this isn't the standard format for this word in print media. I'll leave it for a few days to see if anyone wants to explain it (please, not with POV arguments about race etc., this is a matter of English print usage), and then I'll erase the quotation marks. Morgaledh 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use
October 2007 interview with Tony Kaye at The Onion AV Club ("I'm very proud of a lot of American History X, and feel very embarrassed about my egotistical behavior.") - Best regards, Steve  T • C 10:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"The White Man Marches on"
Several people here state that this song is by Johnny Rebel, but it's not. It's not an actual song from an artist. It was made only for the movie, and it was made to sound like Johnny Rebel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.84.165 (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dating the story
the plot description begins by identifying the timing as "late early 1990s." which is it? 76.67.121.61 (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)callmenaomi

This page is NOT a dicussion forum for the movie
This page is for discussing ways in which the article can be improved. It is _not_ a place to discuss the movie itself.Matt Gerber (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Other notes" section
The "Other notes" section was pure speculation, as mentioned by the author in the passage itself. Unless there is a source for the information, it should be kept out of the article. Matt Gerber (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

D.O.C. (Disciples of Christ)?
I just watched a censored version on FX (the channel). They never said what D.O.C. stood for. Do they say what it is in the uncensored version? Is it possible we could clarify wherever they said it in the article? Thanks! Paladin Hammer (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it stands for Department of Corrections Matt Gerber (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's talking about the tatoo on danny's arm. It says "D.O.C". Paladin is right - disciples of christ. You're wrong. Sorry. 86.136.209.27 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot section problems
Is it just me, or is the plot section written from too much of a screenplay-selling perspective, in a way that kind of glorifies things? "As we move into the office", "we see"...strictly speaking, the use of "we" is probably bad form for something like this. If anyone esle has a better way to address the plot more neutrally, hit it up.

24.3.14.157 (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Murder
Since when did he murder those two guys trying to steal his car....

Murder is planning out a kill ( more dangerous, longer jail sentence ), and btw, I thought it was three guys...

It should be manslaughter...or just say he killed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.140.63 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He did get accused of manslaughter. It was voluntary manslaughter though which is the reason why he received three years in jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.210.48 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Did he not receive 6 years and then get early parole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.64.73 (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the Conclusion of this Film ?
Anbody can tell in details, What is the conclusion of this Film American History X?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.49.95 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Danny gets shot and dies in the bathroom. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So why were both Kes and Sisko in the film?
Did the whole story just occur on the Holodeck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.29.195 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary question
I was wondering about the plot summary. It presents the events of the film in chronological order, not in the order the scenes were shown. It seems like it would make more sense to tell the story in the order the viewer saw it. For example, the part about Derek and Danny's father being a racist was the earliest event in the movie's time line, but one of the last scenes of the movie. The article has this at the beginning but it seems like the flashbacks should be mentioned in the order they are shown. Right now the article has the plot in more chronological order and I was wondering which way was correct.

Critical reception section
Seems missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuity errors
Do you think is worth mentioning the two very obvious errors in the movie, these being: When the two brothers are taking off the neo-nazi propaganda off their wall, the big red flag disappears from the wall and they later take it off, and the other, When Danny is shot, he drops the paper to the floor, then when he is falling, the paper is seen falling far away and when he finally collapse he has the paper in his hand.

It should be mentioned? Zidane tribal (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot names
An anonymous user has been changing most of the names to Tim. I'm reverting this vandalism. --TMC1221 (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Was this stated in the movie??
"Both are extremely intelligent and charismatic students". Trying to pump up the white folks w/ this statement are we? I didn't hear anywhere in the movie that the boys were "extremely intelligent and charismatic". Do moderators still exist?


 * I don't think that sentence in the article is remotely political or racist in nature. It's a little strong on rhetoric, and I would probably remove the word 'extremely', but it's fairly self evident from the movie that Derek and Danny are of above average intelligence (good sense is another thing completely). I didn't think Danny was very charismatic though. Perhaps you're just seeing racism because you want to? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're EXACTLY right, he's simply chasing phantoms. -5000 miles from home on a public computer not logged on my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.163.18.2 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please post
A very PROMINENT header at the top of this page marking this movie as a WORK OF FICTION. I am SO sick of businesses and schools googling my name and coming up with this page, calling me a racist and telling me that I am unworthy of their time. (MY name is Daniel Vinyard and this movie is a work of fiction. Dpvinyard (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

American history x 2 ?
Hi. There is a urban legend around france that a second movie had been made in 2008, and was censored thereafter, making it unavailable by almost every means. In regard of what i searched and found around, i believe there never was a American history X 2, but is there a way to definitely confirm it ? Some kids around here are getting pretty anoying/anoyed with this legend. Thanks if someone may answer me. --Lussh (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph doesn't make sense
''Tony Kaye, the film's director, cut a first version and the test screenings had gone well so New Line was hesitant to implement significant changes. With some suggestions from New Line, Kaye manufactured a second heavily shortened cut, which New Line rejected as it bore little resemblance to the first. Film editor Jerry Greenbert was brought in to cut a third version with Edward Norton. New Line received positive feedback from test audiences, so New Line pressured Kaye to use this version as the final cut.''

If new line where happy with the film then why are they suggesting changes Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Heros lawsuit
Would it be appropriate to this article to include a brief section about the Oi/Punk band Anti-Heros suing New Line Cinema over unauthorized use of their logo as a tattoo in the movie? Or would that fall under the heading of Trivia/Miscellaneous info? --Brendanmccabe (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the lawsuit ultimately turned out, but one source: 1 states that the band's logo, which the band explicitly disallowed the movie to use, was removed for home releases. --Brendanmccabe (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)