Talk:Dark City (1998 film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

 * Dark City explores the subject matter of murder, as well as abstract ideas such as hallucination, simulated reality, and the relationship between memory and personal identity.
 * I'm not convinced the film explores the idea of "hallucination". This sounds strange.  What is the exact source for this statement?  Perhaps the editor means "illusions"?  The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and I'm not seeing anything about hallucinations.  The citation links only to the film; I'm assuming it intends to point to a featurette or commentary by the director.  A little more clarity on the term and citation cleanup would be helpful here. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm strongly recommending the removal of "hallucination". I will look through the edit history to see who added it and why.  I'm also going through the sources to find out more. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The page history shows that in Aug-Sep of 2010, User:DeWaine made these changes, adding "abstract ideas such as hallucination and simulated reality", which he sourced to the DVD. However, those two ideas aren't the primary or central themes.  To check, I just finished reviewing the "Memoirs of A Nervous Illness" featurette as part of the "Architecture of Dreams" documentary on the director's cut.  Apparently, this is what DeWaine was referring to when they use the word "hallucination" in the lead.  Unfortunately, it has little to nothing to do with the film, but with the backstory of the Schreber character. On the DVD, author Rosemary Dinnage talks about the basis for Schreber, the real Daniel Paul Schreber, who went "mad" and wrote a book about it.  Later, Freud interpreted Schreber's memoirs and brought it to popular attention.  According to Dinnage:
 * "As Freud pointed out, when you are completely mad and you've sort of lost it all and the world has gone from you, you then have to fill up the empty space with hallucinations, voices, rays coming from God. And I think that was something really brilliant of Freud to have caught on to that. But people didn't think very much along those lines in those days.  We've got through to that sort of thing now, I think.'"
 * Dinnage is not talking about the film, but Freud's interpretation of Shreber's memoirs. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Back in 2010, DeWaine also modified the lead to say that "extraterrestrials referred to as the Strangers...masquerade as humans." They are not in the business of pretending to be humans.   Their primary role is study humans and inhabit their dead bodies for survival.  The reason they are studying humans is so that they can attempt to realize a semblance of individuality for survival purposes.  As it stands, they have a group mind and are unable to maintain thoughts or lives of their own.  So, the lead should not say they are masquerading as humans, as that isn't part of the plot. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Because of its importance, the "relationship between memory and personal identity" needs to be in the article, not just the lead. I'm not seeing anything in the themes section. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ...nominated for multiple awards, including the Hugo and Saturn Awards...Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Film, and the Film Critics Circle of Australia. It was met with generally positive critical reviews from mainstream film journalists.
 * As a reader, it seems odd to read about the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Film and the Film Critics Circle of Australia is in the lead. Do we usually note film critics circle awards in the lead section of film articles?  My gut says no. Ebert cited it as the best film of 1998, and it won a Saturn and Bram Stoker, which is notable.  I think this could be tightened up a bit. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a source that might help correct this problem: Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It was met with generally positive critical reviews from mainstream film journalists.
 * Is it necessary to say more than "it was met with positive critical reviews"? Obviously, we use sources from mainstream film journalists, so that doesn't need to be said.  Considering the length of the critical reception section, one should be able to briefly expand this in the lead, mentioning exactly which elements were found favorable, for example, per Ebert, the composition, the complexity and beauty of the large lighted sets with long and deep shots, the sepia tone colors with the brown and pale yellow contrasting with darkness, etc. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not sufficient for the lead (nor the body). Per Ebert in the "Introduction by Alex Proyas" featurette, the film was met with negative reviews upon release and poor receipts.  DVD, television, and select theatrical revivals have changed its status over the years. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead (and body) should mention that the director's cut restored Proyas's original vision for the film. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mention of the Titanic release is important enough for the lead, since it altered the release and Box Office take. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot

 * Checks out at 645 words. High readability. Not bad! Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cast

 * Is this an unconventional/older MOSFILM structure? Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Themes

 * The entire themes section relies on the opinions of just two sources, Loughlin and Higley. I'm a bit skeptical here, since the theme section avoids mentioning the central theme of the film, which is one of the most popular in science fiction: what does it mean to be human?  The secondary theme, the nature of memory and identity, which appears in the lead, doesn't appear at all.  See:  Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gerard Loughlin presents a theological analysis of Dark City as the Allegory of the Cave. While interesting, this is not the central theme, but rather a quotidian interpretation.  The Allegory of the Cave is found in many works, intentionally or not, in the same way that one might find the the journey of the archetypal hero in thousands of films.  This should be attributed and shortened, with greater emphasis placed on the central theme instead. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The influences section mentions a very minor motif, but the themes section needs to mention the major ones such as the spiral shape we see in the film, from the symbol carved into the corpses, to the maze in Shreber's office, to the layout of the city, to the fingerprints. There's also the motif of the long, deep, and narrow shots. (Ebert)  I notice that the design section mentions "themes of darkness, spirals, and clocks" but we have a theme section for a reason. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another reference I strongly suggest to recall is Philip K.Dick's 'A Maze of Death'. There a group of people was playing a different role every time, each wondering which would be their true identity. None of them in the play was aware of the last truth: they were traveling in the space attached to a machine, which changed their memories recreating a new world at every round. During each session of collective dreaming, in the virtual reality also entities of a particular religion appear, as the Demiurge, the Form Destructor, the Intercessor. In Dark City, we find a powerful machine which acts like the Demiurge or the Form Destructor, only responding to a strong-will mind which is capable to be in 'resonance' with it. The last question (what makes unique the conscience of every human being) has not an explicit response, but for John is not laying in the human mind, conducting us to some supreme entity, also if in the Plot no kind of Intercessor is presented. Maybe it is not a base-reference, but I bet it had a strong influence on the author... Netsaver (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.240.23 (talk)

Production

 * Lacks basic shooting and post info. Current article fails to document the test audience reaction and studio recommendation of adding a voice-over narration which upset Proyas and interfered with his vision for the film.  This was remedied with the director's cut. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Influences

 * He originally conceived a story about a 1940s detective who is obsessed with facts and cannot solve a case where the facts do not make sense.
 * Proyas says he originally conceived the story as a mystery, ("Memories of Shell Beach") so mystery film might be mentioned/linked. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anybody else think this film is similar to a novel by Strugatsky brothers "Doomed City" written in 1950s? I can list these similarities:
 * People from different times and countries from earth are moved into a different city-universe for some "experiment."
 * City inhabitants get regular job reassignments.
 * "Mentors" are supervising the experiment.
 * "Mentors" are generally pale in appearance and wear bowler hats.
 * The city is surrounded by unknown abyss about which not much is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Writing

 * Although it is slightly implicit in the section, it should explicitly mention (per the "Memories of Shell Beach" featurette) that Proyas began writing the story in the early 1990s, circa 1991. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarities to other works

 * Kudos to whomever added the Nolan material to this section. When I saw Inception for the first time, the very first thought that came to mind was Dark City.  It was an obvious homage. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Release

 * Current version doesn't talk about the marketing campaign, which sold the film as a horror rather than a science fiction film, possibly alienating the intended audience. Although the Box Office section mentions the Titanic competition, apparently this also led to a delayed release and should be mentioned. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

 * Doesn't describe the poor response from critics in the context of its original release. Instead we get a current measure of the film's popularity on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which misses the point. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead has summary and accuracy issues (I've fixed the most egregious ones as outlined above)
 * Cast section needs major expansion. Lots of information missing here.
 * Cleanup/merge needed in the "Similarities to other works" section due to overlap with "Influences" (Metropolis, M, and Nosferatu). "The Matrix" material would work better in the production section about Fox Studios, which only appears in the lead at this point.
 * Cleanup/merge needed in the "Design" section due to overlap with "Themes" (spirals).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Minor sourcing issues.
 * Unnecessary use of multiple references
 * Improper format of sources. (for example, "The Metropolis Comparison. Dark City DVD (1998).")
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Major aspects are missing or incomplete.
 * "Box Office" section mentions Titanic but "Release" doesn't.
 * Theme section needs work; should discuss memory and personal identity, "what it means to be human".
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article looks good, and whomever wrote the plot section should be congratulated. But when one reads with a critical eye, major errors, omissions, and sourcing issues rise to the surface.  The page history shows that earlier versions of the lead contained more accurate information than the current version. I've commented on this extensively above.  The theme section doesn't touch upon the central theme at all nor does it discuss the minor ones.  The history of the release and critical response is slanted towards recentism.  Production doesn't mention basic shooting details nor does it discuss how and why the director altered the film and added the voice-over narration, an important element of the release history. I've made numerous suggestions for improvement above (should be easy to implement) and I'm willing to lend a hand, but right now, this is a B-Class article. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article looks good, and whomever wrote the plot section should be congratulated. But when one reads with a critical eye, major errors, omissions, and sourcing issues rise to the surface.  The page history shows that earlier versions of the lead contained more accurate information than the current version. I've commented on this extensively above.  The theme section doesn't touch upon the central theme at all nor does it discuss the minor ones.  The history of the release and critical response is slanted towards recentism.  Production doesn't mention basic shooting details nor does it discuss how and why the director altered the film and added the voice-over narration, an important element of the release history. I've made numerous suggestions for improvement above (should be easy to implement) and I'm willing to lend a hand, but right now, this is a B-Class article. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)