Talk:Donnie Darko/Archive 1

The Kafka Quote in the Plot Section
There's a Kafka quote in the Plot section of the article that reads like this: "And I dream of a grave narrow and deep where we could hold each other as if with iron bars and you would hide your face in me and I would hide my face in you and nobody would see us any more." This has been either copied or translated wrong. The quote, from Franz Kafka's The Castle, reads like this:
 * "I can't think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there's no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us anymore."

I've seen this movie but I'm not even sure of the relevance of this particular quote to anything. Can anybody enlighten me or should that sentence in the Plot section be deleted? For now I'm going to fix the quotation. Nicklob 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the relevance of the quote at all. Its accuracy or inaccuracy is a moot point, as are several translations of the original German text from different eras. :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
How about a mention of Donnie's schizophrenia? I believe that this is a central theme of the movie, as Donnie portrays many obvious symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia (delusional paranoia, detachment from reality, visual hallucinations, etc.), and the movie goes as far as to clearly state that Donnie is schizophrenic.


 * Because it doesn't specifically state it in the movie, it's original research, and isn't allowed. Fllmtlchcb 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. When Rose and Ed meet with Dr. Thurman, she tells them that Donnie is displaying the symptoms of a paranoid schizophrenic.  Although it's not a definite diagnosis, I would agree that it warrants a mention. 16 Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.25.205.90 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * The doctor's diagnosis is clearly wrong when, at the end, he does indeed go back in time. He wasn't schizophrenic and what was actually happening to him is already explained in the article.  The doctor's incorrect diagnosis is therefore not relevant.--Lord Galen 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is correct, it remains that the doctor made that diagnosis, and as the doctor plays a significant role in the movie, her opinion would warrant mention at the very least. IMHO, the doctor and Donnie's parents are the anchor to "real life", keeping things as realistic as possible, to keep us guessing until the very end. Without that element of reality, it would just be another sci-fi with an astronomically suspended disbelief. I like to think of Donnie's schizophrenia as his tragic flaw, which he overcomes in the end. V-Man - T/C 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

okay, I don't know how this @#@% Wikipedia works. I am a triple-boarded psychiatrist who tried to put something into the Inconsistencies section but it didn't stick or somebody removed it. V-Man is correct: if we buy into the reality of the film FOR THE CHARACTERS, Dr. Thurman would NOT have prescribed placebos for, to HER, an obviously psychotic man. In fact, it is unethical to do so without the patient's permission, e.g. a double-blind drug study. M.Stitham, M.D.

Donnie is not schizophrenic, the end (as stated above) has him travelling back in time and Frank turns out to be a real person therefore not a figment of his imagination. The fact that he sees Frank in his mind before he actually sees him in "real life" simply adds to the mystery of the time travel/fate element in the movie. I honestly think the whole point here is that the director doesn't want there to be a cut and dry solution to the questions the movie raises. I also think he is trying to take a dig at the way society lumps people into baskets such as "mentally ill" people. Whose to say time travel isn't real?? A few centuries ago the world was flat.

Okay for real
One thing is not explained in the synopsis nor anywhere I can find: *How* did Donnie get the engine back into the Primary Universe? All I see is the engine falling when he's sitting on the car (It has dead Gretchen inside it.) and then it switches to the primary. How did he send it back? Telekineses? Any answer would be very appreciated. 69.152.231.56 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Donnie Darko didn't have to do anything physically or otherwise to send the engine back into the primary universe. With the help of Frank and Gretchen, he lined up the sequence of events needed to send it back. This included sending Roberta Sparrow the letter, because that caused 'alive' Frank to swerve her as she retrieves it and kill Gretchen instead. Everything that happened was on account of Frank lining things up, all so that Donnie Darko could save the lives of others and sacrifice his own. Kepiblanc 08:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement
I feel that this part of the article is completely unecessary and is more like a critic's review than adding more to te description of the movie. "The film is more than a time-travel story. It is a darkly comic satire of school life, so-called self-help gurus, teen angst, and drill teams. Jake Gyllenhaal has received much praise for his performance as the disaffected, yet charming Donnie, and the rest of the cast also delivers effectively quirky performances."

Do you guys think it should be deleted? Turboduded 23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the information should be kept, but the tone thrown out. --Fell Collar 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above person. The information is all true, I guess, though it does seem like an opinion at some points. -Mildew93 23:05, 12 May 2006 (PST)

New page for soundtrack?
shouldn't soundtrack be on a different page? now this article is more about the soundtrack then the whole rest of the movie --62.251.90.73 14:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm, you could be right there... - IMSoP 19:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the sound track is a good size, its not big enough to have its own article. --ShaunMacPherson 11:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the soundtrack is genius and maybe just a little description of the OST? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 July 2006.

Groundhog Day explanation
The movie "Donnie Darko" is about Donnie's first successful quest in ending the temporal paradox cycle or "time-loop" which he is caught in (not unlike Bill Murray in the movie "Groundhog Day".)

When the engine from the Oct. 30 PU drops (into the past), the PU is gone, the TU is created. Similarly, when the engine in the Oct. 30 TU drops (when the LR/Donnie fails), the TU collapses, and the PU is reset, at the point we see in the beginning of the movie. This is the loop, and it continues until the engine does not drop in the TU because it is sent back to the PU by Donnie. Ending this repeating time-loop is directly how he saves the universe.

Evidence that Donnie Darko is caught within a repeating time-loop.

At the intro, Donnie is laughing (as if he remembers something that has happened previously) when looking at the sky. This is where the movie begins, and it is also where the tangent is reset and the loop begins when Donnie is not successful. Then the loop continues as we see when the engine drops into the past via a time corruption to create the tangent universe. On that previous previous quest, Donnie did not send the artifact back. He remembers something good from his experience in that tangent, and laughs (but not as much as when he laughs and laughs at the end of the movie after he is completely and finally successful in ending the looping time paradox by preventing the jet-engine from landing where it already exists).

When the engine crashed through the house, an alternate universe had been created by the falling jet-engine; however Frank-Bunny appeared before the engine crashed, before the Tangent Universe was created; therefore Frank-bunny must have traveled from another point in time ie a previous tangent universe in the repeating cycle.

In his bathroom mirror, Donnie sees Frank and starts stabbing Frank's eye through liquid. Evidence that Donnie knows / remembers something about Frank's injured eye from a previous TU.

In the theater when Frank-bunny has taken of his mask, Donnie asks what has happened to his eye. Frank turns his head and stares, and Donnie looks at the screen and starts to smile. Another clue that Donnie has done all of this before in the previous timeloops.

The only way Frank could have been killed by Donnie at the end of the movie was if Frank-Bunny had already saved Donnie at the beginning of the movie. The Manipulated Dead Frank-rabbit appears before he himself is assumed to be created when Frank is shot by Donnie, it follows that this Manipulated Dead Frank-rabbit could not have come from the Frank seen in the movie, but the Frank, shot by Donnie, in an unseen previous Tangent Universe. Clearly, this was not the same entity, as an existing thing cannot create itself for the first time. Each different Manipulated Dead entity has expired in the failed quest to guide Donnie to "use his Fourth Dimensional Power to send the Artifact back in time into the Primary Universe before the Black Hole collapses upon itself." Frank had to die in a previous tangent before coming back to rescue (and guide) Donnie. Since the tangent universe is eventually destroyed by being reset, this is how Frank initially died and then returned in the next tangent universe as the Manipulated Dead and guided Donnie to eventually shoot him (part of the Ensurance Trap set for Donnie to send the engine back).

___

I would like to refute this argument.

3PennyProphet 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

___

Before attempting to refute, why don't you offer an alternate clear and specific explanation on how MD Frank can exist (to wake Donnie) before he is created (when he is shot by Donnie).

It's a very interesting argument, but I see some flaws with your logic. Why would Donnie wake up on the ridge almost a full 24 hours before the engine crashes through his roof, if it is simply the tangent universe being reset after Donnie is unsuccessful? It would seem foolhardy to argue that Donnie could go back in time to a point where the tangent universe that is supposedly repeating, hasn't come into existence yet. It just doesn't make sense that Donnie would finish his journey through the tangent universe (presumably in your interpretation with a failure) to only wake up in the primary universe, go through a nice bicycling montage, eat a family dinner, before being summoned by frank out of his room as the "next" tangent universe begins. If your argument is to be accepted, one must belive that a continuous string of tangent universes exist, in some sort of casual loop time- travel scenario, where in the movie it is clearly seen that there a breaks between such supposed universes therby refuting your argument. A lapse of successive tangent universes exists within your groundhog day argument which makes me question some of your otherwise solidly rooted argument about the origins and nature of MD Frank. Regarding Frank; if you watch the deleted scenes, Frank alludes to the fact that he is supposedly God's messenger ("God loves all his children.."), sent to guide Donnie to prevent the universe from falling into oblivion. The entire movie and all the scripture we are provided with in the Director's Cut allude to the fact that if Donnie doesn't succeed the Tangent universe will destroy all matter in the primary universe (and how can we further our knowledge about Donnie Darko if we don't take these writings to heart as fact?). This is Donnie's quest throughout the movie. The threat of complete anihilation by the rupture of the Tangent universe itself is what causes Donnie to follow God's via Frank orders to save the universe. This dire consequence of failure immediatly refutes your continuation theory of the tangent universe being reset in order to give Donnie another chance to save us all. But the fact remains, how did MD Frank wake Donnie up if he hadn't been created yet? We must look to another example of manipulated dead to understand this progression and seeming contradiction of events. I am specifically refering to Gretchen Ross who appears in the "Philosophy of Time Travel" book in the index as manipulated dead along with Frank. Why then do we see no evidence of a manipulated dead Gretchen throughout the movie, when MD Frank is featured so prominently? The simple answer is that the reason MD Frank is able to appear to Donnie alone, while being invisible to others, and no other manipulated dead are seen is because Frank is specifically chosen by God as Donnie's guide and shepard. It is this selection which allows Donnie to see Frank using his living reciever powers. The MD Frank Donnie sees is from the tangent universe, but simply from the future of that tangent universe, as selected by God. Without God's selection in the ultimate goal of saving the universe, there can be no manipulated dead. This is how MD Frank can exist before Donnie shoots him.

I completely agree with This last argument, so why the hell isn't the question of God put into the review/synopsys of the film? It is not that i specially believe myself in god, but not only does the whole base for time-travel rely on God's existence (discussion with teacher that he must stop because he doesnt wanna get fired because of theological discussion), but Frank is also identified as God's Messenger, and Richard Kelly in commentary(original version, deleted scene at the golf club) says that he thinks that this film is about Divine Intervention. This film is my favourite and so i was very pleased to discover there was an extensive analysis of it, but to dismiss God completely in the Interpretations of this film would surely be missing one of the points of this film? Remember when the Psychiatrist asks him if it was God's Plan he is talking about? In my opinion Donnie's quest could also be to save the world as God's representative? Aided by God's messenger Frank he discovers God exists and therefor can sacrifice himself stopping the causal loop and saving the world as a result. Does he or does he not discover that God exists by coming back in time? Who would laugh before death unless he knew there is nothing to fear? And does he not die in a slightly disturbing martyrical way?(planks through body, deleted scene easter bunny). I may have not explained my interpretation clearly, but im definitely on to something. Also Frank's existence can also be explained by God's Plan. If everything in time has already been written. Frank can simply have been sent back in time by God as the person shot at the end simply to bring Donnie to accomplish this act. (He shoots him right in the eye no?). I think the whole film after a while starts working on Cause/Consequence mixups that would happen if time travel were really possible. And what if Donnie's laughing were just the proof that he was already in contact with Frank? Who knows for how long he has been? He is not scared a single bit by this Rabbit, as if he had grown accustomed to him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 July 2006.

___

According to the book clips shown in the Director's cut and linked to in this article, wouldn't this time through the loop be a failure? He died before he could cause his death. In fact, this loop is impossible to fix (or begin, really) as the paradox must necessarily exist to create the paradox. For example, the ending implies Frank designed the costume based on dreams caused by his role in events as the Manipulated Dead. The ending, where Donnie allows the jet engine to kill him, is a paradox itself, not a resolution. It is an effect with no cause. If he has to survive the engine fall to cause it 28 days later, but can only survive it because of the loop itself, his death will not resolve the paradox. If it does end the loop, it will do so by making it impossible to resolve it and thus destroy the universes of both time lines (if the book is correct). At best, it will set him back at the beginning of the loop like in Groundhog day, where the protagonist in a loop (but not a predestination paradox) commits suicide several times to try and end it, only to come back at the beginning. Simply failing to cause the time travel will have the exact same effect as his death.

This loop can therefore not be created from inside either time line, or resolved inside the loop (except by failure and the destruction of the universe, again if this is really possible). As several of the characters noted, it requires outside intervention of vast power, and to call this divine intervention fits well enough. The loop cannot be created inside a time line unless it already exists. In short, Donnie CAN NOT win, and the 'God's Messenger' idea is fruitless unless God is just messing with him. Even if the ending of the movie is the resolution, that leaves a paradox. If this does not cause a new loop (or for that matter start the original one), then what was different?

[ 02:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)msmit118

Sanity
I think this article is insane. I'm terribly confused about the plot. --TIB (talk) 21:11, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you actually see the movie? I think the plot summary explains everything I wanted to know and is a piece of exceptional writing.  In fact I just watched the movie 10 minutes ago and came here to have a plot explanation, and it was a very good one ;).  Very good work on this article everyone. --ShaunMacPherson 11:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's that sort of film. If you watch it, you will be even more confused about the plot. --Ben Morris


 * It is a very confusing movie at first. I had to see it a couple times, and I was still a bit unclear. But I got the shooting script (Donnie Darko: The Book) and it helped SO much. Just looking around online at various sources helped me understand it also. I did find the plot synopsis a bit long, and it could use a summary or something of the sort. Mildew93

If you watch this movie 25 times, you will understand that not even the director is sure of what he is talking about. It's just that after viewing it enough, you will have your own opinion on what you think it is about. Your interpretation will have as much value as any other, just as long as you can back it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 July 2006.

Education satire
The article describes the film as a satire on public education, but the school in the film is a private school.
 * I'd say it's a satire on education in general. --Agent Aquamarine 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jacob's Ladder inspiration?
Has nobody else noticed that this film was clearly inspired by Jacob's Ladder (1990)? I think that it is interesting that Donnie Darko is credited for being so original, when it is practically a retelling of Jacob's Ladder (with different characters and setting)

You could say the same about this and The Last Temptation of Christ


 * I disagree of Jacob's Ladder. (Spoilers of it follows) Both films have hallucinations and main character dying in the end of the film earlier in kronoloqy than the most of the film is supposed to take place. That is where I see the similarities ending. The tone is completely different. The main characters react quite differently to their situations, and their reactions to the situations are an important basis for both of the films. Donnie Darko focuses on what will happen in the future and Jacob's Ladder on what happened in the past.
 * Agreed completely. OmegaX123 20:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The tone is different in the two films (and in The Last Temptation of Christ), but the theme of the protagonist making the final sacrifice of his life is very similar. In Jacob's Ladder, Jacob finally let's go of his clinging onto life and enters a very happy and open and bright place. Same thing with Donnie in the end (as well as Christ, in Last Temptation). Their paths are certainly different, the tones of the arc of their sacrifice are different, but in the end the stories do seem to come down to the ultimate sacrifice (of Jacob's attachments to the life that he'd had; of Christ's last temptation by the feminine and a normal life; of Donnie's acceptance of the dissolutions of the trangent universe he has been traversing back and forth). --Cyberfactotum 08:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While Donnie Darko's sacrifice has a purpose - to save the world, Jacob's sacrifce is meaningless - a useless sacrifice to an unjust war.  Also, while Jacob's Ladder is a worthwhile telling of one man's journey to find the courage and the means to let go and die, Donnie Darko is at least trying to explore larger issues of time travel, God and fate (while also containing on target commentary on teenage and highschool life).

Mother and sister killed in the alternate reality?
Since when were his mother and younger sister killed in the alternate reality? Unless I missed something (and I've seen the film god knows how many times), this is bunk. Ambi 01:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err, on the plane from LA they were killed surely--Thewayforward 01:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I saw a comment on this on Ambi's talk page. I don't recall Donnie's mother and sister dying in the alternate reality, either. PaulHammond 17:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is not a question of "missing something", "recalling", or "surely", but one of interpretation - the mother and sister are not actually shown dying (as far as I can remember), but they are shown involved in a serious air accident. It is left to the viewer to figure out what happens next, but it is presumably significant that the mother and sister are on the plane, so one could reason that something significant must happen to them. It's also clearly one of those things where the mind fills in the gaps to the extent that we can "remember" things that aren't actually shown in the film. - IMSoP 21:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are on the plane when the engine is pulled off and it begins to shake. Their imminent death is implied. The director and actors have acknowledged this in interviews. But it doesn't really matter because: 1) The engine goes through the wormhole before the plane would physically crash, and everyone is returned to Oct. 2 in the Primary Universe; and 2) Even if Donnie didn't manipulate the engine into the wormhole, even if there were nothing at all happening to that plane, the Universe was about to collapse in seconds, and EVERYONE would have ceased to exist.


 * Hey, this is a great article. Have watched the film a few times now and seen the director's cut (with and without the commentary) so I'm gradually getting up to speed...  But I still don't get the importance of setting up Donnie's mother and sister to be on the plane that loses its engine.  Why is it important that they're on board?  Donnie just needs to telekinetically rip the engine off the plane; why does it matter who's on it?  (Cardinal Wurzel March 9th 2006, 10.00am)


 * Doesn't seem to me to be any need for telekinesis to happen on the plane. Use Occam's razor. The parameters of the tangent universe pivot upon Donnie's room being hit by the plane engine. That's just a necessity. At one end of the spectrum he's not in the room when the engine hits, and survives; at the other end of the spectrum, he is in the room, and dies. It doesn't "matter" whether his mother and sister are on the plane, or are killed, but them being there does serve to add more importance to Donnie's universe creation/dissolution. He is essentially sacrificing himself for his mother and sister (and Frank and Gretchen) and all the experiences and memories he/they have all gone through in his awakening. His sacrifice dissolves everything that apparently happened. But the sacrifice needed emotive "fuel" and importance to propell him into making it, and who better to provide that than his mother and sister and Gretchen.--Cyberfactotum 09:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, got it! So his superpowers are all about the portal and nothing to do with crashing the actual plane, which happens either way - that's the piece of the puzzle I was missing.  And events are being manipulated so that everyone he cares about will die if he doesn't act, not just Gretchen.  I see everything!  Thanks, Cyberfactotum - good explanation!  (Cardinal Wurzel March 19th 2006, 12:37pm)

His mother and sister do not die. For them to get on the plane it has to be after the crash. In the start Donnie does not die so they get on the plane for the dance thing his sister does. But at the end if he does die do you really think a week or so later his mom and sister would be over his death and get on the plane? Sean-- October 5, 2006

I've seen this movie literally 18 or 19 times. One scene (of many) I don't get is, right at the end, after sending the engine back in the special effects sequence and before he gets into bed, we see both his parents and sisters celebrating, either the star search or Harvard success. If we're still in the alternative universe, why are his mother and little sister alive to celebrate? I originally presumed they died on the plane in that world. This may just be his way of saying goodbye.--Patrickneil 22:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thought. The only reason the mom gets on the plane is because the phedophile (not sure on spelling) died and the head dance person had to go defend him. So if that guy does not die then Donnies mom has no reason to get on the plane. So infact his mom does not die at all. But if the sister still gets on the plane after Donnies death is something we cant answer. Sean-- October 18, 2006

They do not die, because the tangent universe ends at the point the engine falls and they don't have time. 168.215.108.251 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)msmit118

But wouldnt they have died if donnie didnt let himself die?

Seperate synopsis and interpretation?
I think the article would be much better it the 'plot synopsis' was separated from the 'interpretation'. Any comment? The way it is now, there is a lot of good content, but it is not very readable (IMHO). ike9898 23:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the interpreation of the plot on here at all. I believe that Frank discovers time travel and saves Donnie's life, Donnie having died in the original timeline and become a local legend. However by saving Donnie's life it means Donnie will in turn kill him so that he can not go back in time and save Donnie's life.
 * You probably need to watch the film again because the fact is, the "interpretation" listed here is official and accurate and whatever your talking about is WAAAY off the mark.
 * Unfortunately, I do believe that Richard Kelley has tried to put an end to seperate interpretations of this film. Watch the Director's Cut with Commentary on to see what I mean. Your interpretation doesn't take into account the entire book of "The Philosophy of Time Travel" which talks about Frank being the Manipulated Dead. The MD are people who die in the tangent universe and therefore they can time travel through the Tangent and force the Living Receiver to close the Tangent. That pretty much makes your interpretation of everything null, since it becomes clear that Frank wasn't time travelling on his own, but rather as a pawn of the Tangent Universe. Clembo2021 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here it could get confusing, either this only happens once and Frank finds out about it so doesn't try to save Donnie again so as to avoid a time loop. Time is stuck in a timeloop which could have occurred many times before we see the film but now Donnie has reached enlightenment and realises the only way to save the world/his girlfriend (depending on whether you interpret the world as meaning the entire world or his personal world) is to die.... bah there is just too many possibilities. The entire film could all have even just been a dream --Josquius 16:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kelly has tried to stop interpretation after the film but it is obvious in the commentary that he is often unsure of what he is talking about. He has made his masterpiece so perfect and unpersonal that even his point of view can be rejected by those who see it in a different eye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 July 2006.

Butterfly Effect
Should we possibly note the similarities between The Butterfly Effect and this? -- A Link to the Past 21:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I kind of liked The Butterfly Effect and feel that it is of the class of Donnie Darko, Jacob's Ladder, The Last Temptation of Christ (and also Time Cop.) One main protagonist inside of at least one sort of maniupulated/alternative/created reality, and the protagonist goes through an awakening process and makes some sort of (usually grand) sacrifice.--Cyberfactotum 09:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

-Nah, that film came later, and was gash

Yeah I didn't really care for the movie. Alright, so he ultimately goes back in time to save his girlfriend's life, but now, 1) he dies by the plane engine falling on him, 2) at least his youngest sister dies in the plane that trusts the engine back in time and kills him, and 3) the character played by Patrick Swayze never gets busted for his child porn and so keeps on doing that. Did he really have the die at the end?  He could have prevented all three of them?  At least Butterfly Effect did a better job in justifing the main character's death?  (Sorry, only saw the Director's Cut of that.)

Also the plot synopsis is horrible. Waaayyy to much interpretation in there. He doesn't save his little sister's life. Her and her team still goes to competition, they are just chaperoned by a different person now. The engine still gets ripped off. The engine that kills Donnie has to come from somewhere. Also the axing of the bronze statue doesn't demonstrate his "super-human strength," nor is there any evidence that Donnie used "telekinesis" to rip the engine off the plane and hurl it into the wormhole. Removed all that... --Evmore 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean there's no evidence that Donnie used telekinesis to rip the engine off? The Philosophy of Time Travel clearly states that the Living Receiver has telekinesis. All the powers mentioned in PoT are used in the movie. It's the LR's job to fix the Tangent Universe, how did he do that unless he used telekinesis?Clembo2021 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect about Donnie's sister dying in the Primary Universe. The plane crashed as a result of a black hole opening up in the sky caused by the destabilization of the Tangent Universe. Since Donnie succeeded in preventing the Tangent Universe from forming, there is no reason to assume that the plane would crash in the Primary Universe too.


 * Also, on the Donnie Darko website, a news article shows that the motivational speaker committed suicide in the Primary Universe, sometime soon after the engine crash. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And why would remove the axe thing, Evmore?  That's actually true, I think the director himself mentions Donnie's "super strength" during the sleepwalking.  MasterXiam 22:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is further documented on the DonnieDarko.com website. It contains a records from Donnie's incarceration in a Juvenile Detention Center. It details an "Escape Attempt" inwhich Donnie scaled the barbed-wire fence. Donnie's found the next morning, sleeping in the fetal position in the grass outside the facility. [Unregistered] 11 May 2006

I did enjoy The Butterfly Effect, but how could anybody even hint of it being even in the same league as Donnie Darko?

Time Travel
There should be a seperate headline dedicated to the whole time-travel mess.

A seperation of Synopsis and Interpration is necessarry. This article comes across as very unobjective. It's good but I think I'd like to see things re-evaluated, what is important? and then put into proper subdivision.


 * I've put up what I believe is a fairly accurate synopsis of the whole time-travel mess on the Philosophy of Time Travel page. Have a look-see. CABAL 12:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel there should be a hardlink somewhere to Predestination Paradox since it's central to the story, but I'm not too familiar with the edit history of this document. Can someone volunteer to place it appropriately?

Criticism
Any particular back up for this new section? Never caught a review that approached the movie from this angle, nor have I seen any comments online along these lines, though this can come down to what sort of pages I check out, and as such, I might have a limited view; so anyway: Any sources at all? Zeppocity 12:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Christ
The one thing that people forget to notice is the indelible connection to The Last Temptation of Christ:
 * The movie is set in 1988, the release date of the movie
 * The movie is clearly shown on the marquee of the theater where they see evil dead
 * The notions of an alternate life, outside of predetermined fate, are displayed
 * Gretchen, as the Mary figure, questions Donnie's continued existance
 * Donnie's mother, in both "engine falls" scenes, begins weeping, both in anticipation, understanding, and acceptance

It may be a minor or useless connection, but I fail to see how it's not brought up. Perhaps because the director never explicitly makes the connection known. --&lt;sub&gt;Alex&lt;/sub&gt;¯&lt;sup&gt;Jon&lt;/sup&gt; 10:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with this analysis, though I also feel the number of layers of concurrent symbolism in Donnie Darko won't ever be fully determined. In any case, this all falls into the category of original research, so you should try to locate and cite a review by a known film critic that supports this. Comments at IMDb forums don't qualify, I'm afraid. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  10:42, Dec. 29, 2005


 * Well, in a flash review, I've found that Roger Ebert himself makes an allusion in his review (Editor's Notes) that there is a similarity, which more or less confirms (at least in my mind) that there is some obvious connection in the critical mind between the two. Not to say that it was the director's overt intention, but I'm quite certain that the positioning of the film, which, to be fair, probably wouldn't have been shown so eagerly (and set against Evil Dead, no less), was somewhat intentional. --Alex-jon 13:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gretchen Ross
I've removed the internal link to Gretchen Ross as it redirects back to here. Recommend removing the Gretchen Ross redirection to Donnie Darko and leaving it as a non-existing page, so someone can create a proper stub.
 * Hey, if Kitty Farmer has a page, makes sense for Gretchen to have one as well. Jpers36 16:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kitty Farmer Redirects here. 218.186.9.1 12:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia or Iowa?
The main page says the film is set in Virginia. But I'm pretty sure in a certain scene the principal or guidance counselor says that Donnie's Iowa test scores are exceptional. Did I not hear correctly?
 * the Iowa tests are a standardized test that many schools all over the nation take. I took them, and I went to school in New Jersey, for example.  see Iowa Test of Basic Skills and Iowa Tests of Educational Development (I don't remember which of these two I took.  Maybe both.)  -lethe talk [ +] 05:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills while in grade school in Illinois. Jpers36 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
I took off some of the quotes. Quotes are supposed to be striking in some way and not all of them were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.105.62.132 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-18 02:02:59 (UTC)


 * Actually, you mangled the "Quotes" section header and removed popular quotes, like the "I'm voting for Dukakis" quote. so I reverted. The Rod (&#9742; Smith) 02:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The quotes do seem a bit excessive. A few to illustrate would be appropriate, I think, but some of them, like the sister planning to vote for Dukakis, are not interesting by themselves (it is only funny for her father's reaction).  I agree with the quote cleanup.  Please also see WP:Don't Bite the Newbies.  --Fell Collar 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone should add a Wikiquotes section, as for some, this is an eminently quoatable movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.25.205.90 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

ABC?
Shouldn't this link to the Australian Broadcasting corporation?

Why would there be a link to the Austrlian Broadcase Corporation? --Evilincarnate 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this to link to the ABC 218.186.9.1 12:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Man suit
Re this edit. Frank definitely says man suit. -- Ian &equiv; talk 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Watched it last night; it is man suit.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 11:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I could be mistaken, but I believe I saw a shirt with Frank on it that has human in place of man. Although I could be mistaken. I know that the quote is man, but is there any justification for the mix-up? Straightxedger 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness? -80.135.152.249 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree... somebody was being politically correct by saying "human" instead of "man" which is specifically a gender in most circumstance, but to anybody who is not a fucking moron it would be known that it is referring to huMANity. 24.16.184.74 05:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, even simpler, Donnie is a man. –Pomte 07:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Narration Reliability
Is it not worth mentioning that Donnie may in fact be an unreliable narrator? He has a history of mental illness, and the narration becomes arguably unreliable after the jet engine incident, which could have furthered Donnie's mental instability. I feel as if the director's commentary might actually be a ruse, similar to what David Lynch did with Mulholland Drive. Certain choices (e.g. the fat man randomly being present when Gretchen and Donnie are in the woods) make me believe that Donnie is not perceiving things accurately. Also, Gretchen appears after the jet engine incident too. -Will


 * The fat man is not a random presence. He is an FAA investigator who has been assigned to keep tabs on Donnie. Jpers36 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think it is important to underline Donnie's mental instability. This can be underlined by his incapacity to act in social (his dialogue with gretchen when he is trying to flirt with her is laughable.) But i think that his different perception is the reason he is chosen by God to save the world. Who else would follow a bunny rabbit but someone who was already suffering from a form of skizophrenia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 July 2006.

---

But if God is the one who sent Frank couldn't He have sent His messenger in any form He saw fit? I don't think God picked Donnie because he would follow a giant rabbit because if this is God's messenger couldn't he have sent another one of the MD instead of Frank, especially if that MD would be more believable to whomever He chose?

Quote Cleanup
I think we really ought to consider the usefulness of the rather expansive quotes section. What do the quotes contribute to the article? Clearly not every line from the movie deserves to be included. To keep this from happening (as has been the trend), I think we should try to find a rule of thumb for putting a quote in or keeping it out. Personally, I'm of the opinion that quotes ought to be used only as concrete examples, and that the entire section could be dissolved, with quotes that serve as examples moved to the appropriate places. --Fell Collar 17:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As there seem to be no objections, I'll move the quotes section here for redistribution throughout the article. I have finals this week and may not be able to do much right away.  Please help as you can.  --Fell Collar 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes for Redistribution
Please help put appropriate quotes from this section back into the article as concrete examples in the main body. --Fell Collar 13:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth [at the dinner table]: I'm voting for Dukakis.


 * Kitty [to Donnie's Mother]: Rose! Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!

Frank: Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
 * Donnie: Why do you wear that stupid bunny suit?

Kitty Farmer: I’ll tell you what he said, he asked me to forcibly insert the lifeline exercise card into my anus!
 * Principal Cole: Now let’s go over this again. So what exactly did you say to Mrs. Farmer?


 * Gretchen: What if you could go back in time, and take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better?


 * Karen Pomeroy: I don’t think you have a clue what it's like to communicate with these kids. We are losing them to apathy and this prescribed nonsense. They are slipping away.


 * Donnie [to Cunningham]: You're right actually, I am pretty troubled and I am pretty confused and I'm afraid, really, really afraid, but I think you're the fucking anti-christ. [applause]

Elizabeth:(laughing) What? Did you just call me a fuck-ass? You can just go suck a fuck! Donnie: Please tell me Elizabeth, how exactly does one suck a fuck? Elizabeth: You want me to tell you? Donnie: Please, tell me Rose Darko: We will not have THIS at the dinner table. Donnie: I'm all ears. (Pause) Samantha: What's a fuck-ass?
 * Donnie: You're such a fuck-ass.


 * Frank: Burn it to the ground.


 * Dr. Thurman: Donnie is experiencing what is commonly called a daylight hallucination.

Rose Darko: Frank? Dr. Thurman: Yes. The giant bunny rabbit. Eddie Darko: The what?
 * Dr. Thurman: Has he ever told you about his friend Frank?

Donnie: ...cellar door...
 * Karen Pomeroy: This famous linguist once said that of all the phrases in the English Language... of all the endless combinations of words in history, that "cellar door" was the most beautiful.

Donnie: ...why?
 * Frank: Twenty eight days, six hours, forty two minutes, twelve seconds...that is when the world will end...


 * Frank: Wake up, Donnie... I've been watching you... Come closer... closer... closer...

Gretchen: My parents got divorced, my mom had to get a restraining order against my dad, he has emotional problems. Donnie: Hey, I have those too! What kind of emotional problems does your dad have? Gretchen: He stabbed my mom four times in the chest.
 * Donnie: So why'd you move here?


 * Grandma Death (Roberta Sparrow): Every living creature on this earth dies alone.

Ronald Fisher: We gotta find ourselves a Smurfette. Sean Smith: Smurfette?. Ronald Fisher: Yeah, not some tight-ass Middlesex chick, right? Like this cute little blonde that will get down and dirty with the guys. Like Smurfette does. Donnie: Smurfette doesn't fuck. Ronald Fisher: That's bullshit. Smurfette fucks all the other Smurfs. Why do you think Papa Smurf made her? Because all the other Smurfs were getting too horny. Sean Smith: No, no, no, not Vanity. I heard he was a homosexual. Ronald Fisher: Okay, then, you know what? She fucks them and Vanity watches. Okay? Sean Smith: What about Papa Smurf? I mean, he must get in on all the action. Ronald Fisher: Yeah, what he does, he films the gang-bang, and he beats off to the tape. Donnie: [shouts] First of all, Papa Smurf didn't create Smurfette. Gargamel did. She was sent in as Gargamel's evil spy with the intention of destroying the Smurf village. But the overwhelming goodness of the Smurf way of life transformed her. And as for the whole gang-bang scenario, well, it just couldn't happen. Smurfs are asexual. They don't even have... reproductive organs under those tiny, white pants. It's just so illogical, about being a Smurf, you know? I mean, what's the point of living... if you don't have a dick? Sean Smith: [pause] Dammit, Donnie. Why you gotta get all smart on us?
 * Sean Smith: Beer and pussy. That's all I need.


 * Donnie: Do you want your sister to lose weight? Tell her to get off the couch, stop eating Twinkies and maybe go out for field hockey!
 * Sean Smith: Go back to China, bitch!

Donnie: It's a fucking cigarette.
 * Sean Smith: This is some good shit, huh?

Anyone have a favorite quote? Kelly's is the "Faeces=baby mice", and Gyllenhaal's the "swallow ur vomit". Personally I think the "inserted into my anus" or "I hope you get molested on the way home"(Directors cut) are priceless.

Questionable writing
I edited the parts that did sound like advertisement. Dakpowers 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reception Section Problems
I think this entire excerpt should be removed or cited. When someone writes "Fans often respond..." without citation, all it means is "THIS fan often responds..."

Donnie Darko has occasionally been attacked for encouraging and romanticizing suicide and schizophrenia. Fans often respond that this misses the point, and looks at the film from exactly the shallow level of thought it is trying to combat.

Fans often respond that this misses the point, and looks at the film from exactly the shallow level of thought it is trying to combat. [citation needed]
 * Remove it, then. That whole part was not written very well at all, I edited and removed a lot of it last night. Dakpowers 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the time to re-write and cite this section. This is the first time I've ever worked on a Wikipedia entry. Please let me know if didn't do anything correctly. Thanks!

-

I'm rolling back the most recent changes made to the "Reception" section. These changes are a re-inclusion of following text:

Audiences and critics both consider Donnie Darko a film that cannot be fully grasped in one viewing, making it an ideal sleeper hit while also explaining why it may have flopped at the box office. The film only made a box office total of around $500,000 in the USA (but part of this may be explained by the proximity of the film's release to 9/11),

This text was removed (by me) and replaced with cited facts. There is no cite for the first claim, that the film cannot be grasped in one viewing. And the rest of this paragraph is PURE EDITORIAL. It was released 2 months after 9/11. The real reason it grossed so little, as my text pointed out, was that it was released on VERY FEW screens.

I encourage anyone to read the current version that I just re-instated, and the version that I'm replacing.

This isn't about caring about my writing. This is about 3 important facts:

1. The author that re-added this text back into my version added a lot of text, but absolutely no references.

2. This is editorial. The job is to present the facts, and allow the audience to make it's conjecture.

3. This reads like a fan that's trying to defend the movie from not doing better.

Frank appearance correlates with the tangent universe
The interpretation I'm seeing in the main article seems to be that Frank appearing before the jet plane crahes into the Darko's house means Frank is a manipulated dead from a PREVIOUS Tangent Universe. I move to correct this. As we see in one of the "eye" shots in the movie, the jet engine passes through a dense cloud layer during it's descent. This is the barrier element, and hence, the Tangent Universe actually begins once it exits this cloud layer. Therefore we can assume that it is during the time AFTER it's transition backwards in time to the TU, but BEFORE it reaches the ground, that Donnie's first conversation with Frank occurs. Sadpickle 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a reference for this interpretation? --Fell Collar 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Roberta Sparrow

 * Merge Cliffb 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be merged and rewritten. Sadpickle 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: These two votes were moved here from Talk:Roberta Sparrow --Zoz (t) 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge Mhoskins 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Article was merged. --Zoz (t) 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Jim Cunningham

 * I agree with the merger. This article is one user's essay on a minor character in a movie and belongs on their blog, not Wikipedia. --87.82.23.37 21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * couldnt agree more, leave darko up though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.207.72.201 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 2 June 2006.
 * Note: These two votes were moved here from Talk:Jim Cunningham (Donnie Darko) --Zoz (t) 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge, and most of this article isn't even close to NPOV. Mhoskins 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, useless essay without surrounding context of movie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.198.37 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 June 2006.
 * Article was merged. --Zoz (t) 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Frank (Donnie Darko)

 * if this isn't merged it should be deleted. not even close to wikipedia standards Jporcaro 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For reference the merge template was applied on 21:54, 3 March 2006. -- 82.39.205.158 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: These two votes were moved here from Talk:Frank (Donnie Darko) --Zoz (t) 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This information is pretty much already in the main article. The quotes are more than useless given no context.  Delete and/or redirect. Mhoskins 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge them all. -lethe talk [ +] 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MERGE How does Frank matter outside the context of Donnie Darko? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.198.37 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 20 June 2006.
 * Article was merged. --Zoz (t) 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"I'm Voting for Dukakis"
This section is commentary. Discuss. Jonathan F 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like original research. Delete from article unless there are sources that this is some sort of 'catchphrase' (doubtful). Manmonk 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's a catchphrase but it seems to be quoted from Asimov . I think let's cut it down to a couple of lines and move it to the Trivia section. --Zoz (t) 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rabbit vs. Rabbit Suit
ok the opening sentences say he sees a rabbit. But donnie knows its a man in a rabbit suit. in the theatre he asks whyhe wears that stupid rabbit suit. so shouldnt the intro say he sees a guy in a rabbit suit? --Atticus2020 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the intro is fine, because at the beginning of the film (strictly speaking) he does have visions of a rabbit, and only later do we find out that he's only wearing a rabbit suit. At any rate, I've changed Donnie_Darko to mention he's really a man in a rabbit suit. --Zoz (t) 11:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

THE OFFICIAL STORY OF MY USERNAME

Go to my Lost Power City account and you might find my story somewhere. --Enter Movie 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No one could ever believe that what Donnie sees is a large rabbit. It seems that the costumer and director made an obvious effort to make it look like a rabbit suit and clearly a mask or head piece.
 * The first post in this section only has half the quote. Frank answers 'why are you wearing that stupid man suit'? The director is asking the audience to accept a facade that both he and the directors know is suspect as part of the theme of questioning who we think we are and what we think is real. In any case, I think 'bipedal rabbit' makes it clear enough that this isn't a normal rabbit we're talking about. Antonrojo 15:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Though none of the people above will likely ever read this, i will add my thoughts anyway. It should say "Person in a bunny suit" for a few reasons: When someone is describing the movie, and they say that the protagonist sees a a rabbit in a golf course, people (myself included) will imeddietly imagine an actual rabbit. but if you say "the protagonist sees a person wearing a bunny suit" people will imagine something far more like what is portrayed in the movie. Second, Do you really think Donnie thought that the thing he was seeing was a real rabbit? of course not. He even says as much in the scene where Frank reveals himself to Donnie in the movie theattre. 218.186.9.1 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What Hour and Minute was it.........
When Cunningham died? I don't remember that from the film.

Wait a second. Cunningham goes to prison. I think he kills himself in the reality after Donnie's death. :s sorry im not sure its just no ones answered here a while.


 * Cunningham never died in the movie. There is no implication that this had or would happen. Nbruschi 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the official website of donnie darko there is a puzzle game. Once you solve it, you will get an answer that Cunningham committed sucide some days after Donnies death.

organization ideas
I put in leads for info to go into. I was wondering if anyone could help on pushing all the characters into a cozy paragraph or so, instead of a table and short bios?

Also, the plot needs to be re-worked, with out fan, or other, speculation. Just what happens in the story. We can put theories together in another area.

This is a really good movie from a first time director. It's a rarity to have such an intellectual and complicate plot heavy movie.

Anyone have any other good ideas? Somerset219 05:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also the director is really into the sound track, like every song in the movie is put thier not only for mood, but for related content, perhaps we could expand on this? His other works are the same...

The movie also took 28 days to film, ironically close to the time of the destruction of the universe, maybe we can expand on that in one of the leads.

Donnie darko is a superhero... perhaps expand on that... like citeable sources and info. Just stuff off the top of my head. Somerset219 06:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bring the question of god into interpretation This film is only pseudo-scientific because it depends on the assumption that a divine presence has created time in its entirety? The question of fate that can only be cheated by God's will? And also that Donnie has a problem with his mental health? WTF is that with the smurfs>< sure it is proving that he is intelligent but we must not forget that Donnie is completely aware that he is not right in the head. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 July 2006.

We could also underline how funny this film is? "Well didn't ur dad like stab your mum? ein-ein-ein-ein-ein" Classic. Go back to china bitch? Anyone else realise the kid in the video who pisses his bed is the same that says he wants to learn karate to beat the bullies at school? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 July 2006.


 * for one, who are you? yes it does seem to have religious interpretations, however why was he criticized by his science teacher about time travel, when hes in a religious private school. Another thing, as I can speculate through the directors commentary, Frank is seen as a guide thorugh different dimensions, accorded from technology that has screwed up the dimension. Donnie is progressively given insight , or "super powers", into the realm of quantum mechanics in the hope that he single-handedly can save the universe by setting things back to how they "should" be. In other words, the plane engine fell from a time loop... that was a mistake, Donnie became the one to correct it. The concept of free will is in question, but not really. Its like Donnie and everyone he encounters is a pawn by this "technology" in an effort to right the wrong that was made. however it very well could be god, but why the fuck is god screwing up quantum mechanics? Insinuating donnie is mentally disturbed is underrated, it was given to the audience as superficial, especially when you learn he's taking placebo. The one thing you can attest is that he's very stressed out, nervous, scared and confused. You are right though, the film did have some funny parts. Somerset219 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have Background, Casting, etc sections only if it's possible to fill them with a considerable amount of information. Otherwise we're better off removing the empty sections. --Zoz (t) 10:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait... I thought the science teacher didn't want to develop his point because it would turn into a theological debate and teachers are not allowed to talk about God? I don't see how religious Donnie's teachings are. Hmm...And does anyone know of any background plots like wtf is up with Cherita and why are the bad kids in that Cellar Door place? Also has anyone checked the extensive info on Cunning Visions? Its pretty weird they made websites and a false documentary on that... must have had alot of time on their hands. To Somerset, if i keep bringing back the question of God it is because of the letter that is read out to us as Donnie comes back in time when he says he is scared of what Grandma death will tell him(every living creature dies alone). Yet he comes back in time and realises yes he will die alone but he has nothing to fear or regret because: 1 he has saved everyone and 2 god exists (because time travel is only possible if timeline has already been written etc etc)-> He will go into afterlife. no? And I'd like to say that i really didn't like the director's cut. The film lost its romantic soft side i think by trying to force the weirdness ( too many zooms on the eye glitchy music type things). And to be honest everything i write here doesnt mean i disagree with other points of views because to be honest the reason this film means so much to me is because i will never be able to explain it completely. I also was appalled the Director's cut took "Get off the stage Cherita You suck!" out...
 * funny, i just finished watching the directors cut again and noticed that line taken out also. As I watched the movie again, I would have to agree with you on the God idea. especially when his therapists calls him an agnostic, simply because he hasn't found proof, and the whole free will thing in accordance to christian thought. Ya, I totally agree with you on the after life theory also, especially with the laughing he goes throuh at the end. The one thing I'm a bit unsure of is the science debate with his teacher at school. its a religious school, and their conversation started going into a theological discussion... why would he lose his job if he told the kid it was gods plan? He is not in a public school, where it might be iffy to be religious.

In regards to the Science teacher not wanting to get into a theological debate. Yes, he is teaching at a private school. But he is a science teacher and doesn't necessarily share the beliefs of the school (I think the fact the drew barrymore character is teaching subject matter that others don't agree with and gets fired for it shows how un uniform the beliefs of the faculty are). He probably said he'd get fired because his beliefs are not that of the schools (ie. he is probably an atheist and wouldn't believe that god has predestined time, he certainly didn't believe wormholes would randomly show up out of nowhere). If he had shared his beliefs with Donnie (or any other student) and it made it back to the higher ups at the school, he could have been fired as parents have their kids go to such a school for a reason, and he would be disrupting the wishes of the parents.--Evilincarnate 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cherita is somewhat of a supporting character for Donnie, as far as i can tell from the commentary. The director relates cherita to a supporting character from Fargo, the name has lost me. and the bullies could be in the cellar for a few reasons; 1) grandma death has a jewel collection which has gotten burglarized in the past (Eddie darko, donnies dad, references at the dinner table). 2) It says in the booklet that the manipuated living will help donnie on his quest, hence the bullies in the cellar, setting up franks insurance plot. I also agree with the loss of feel and emotion in the directors cut. The open text from the book, the eye, and the fire-works/time going backwards, was a bit stupid. Anyways, you should sign your name next time. Somerset219 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Donnie Darko Pwns? :D Net2rock 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OMFG! I just realised! No character description of Gretchen? The reason Donnie decides to save us all AND the ultimate weird love story half. DDMusic+Gretchen+Donnie= Me very happy! Any other Gretchen fans? Alllso I just found out Gretchen is the name of Faust's other-half in the famous tale of the pact with the devil. Anyone know anything and have opinions on Gretchen?

Wow watching film with commentary sure punches all that imagination out of you, and pretty much ruins the romance of the film. It just seems (gasp) to me that maybe the director hasn't realised that he has created something that cannot completely be explained and is out of his grasp. (why does he keep saying "I think") Anyway as my english teacher explained, If a person were able to completely explain a book there would be no point in that book in a literary sense because these live on interpretations. I'd much rather keep debating about the film than admit that any person(including me) is right.--Net2rock 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Also, to Somerset the reason Monitoff cannot continue the conversation is because he is not allowed to enter a theological discussion, but we come to understand that these man-made blackholes are only possible if time has been written AND God therefor exists


 * My question is why can't he have a discussion? Thats what Im asking; its a religious school, and their conversation started going into a theological discussion... why would he lose his job if he told the kid it was gods plan? He is not in a public school, where it might be iffy to be religious. However, i do feel he is trying to persuade him that god does exsist, based on him {Donnie) seeing the actions of others before they do it. On another note, because of the plot heavy material, lack of time and background knowledge on the subject, the movie was very confusing. Considering its logic is based on its own plot; ie: Water and Metal are the things you need for time travel; metal engine, conjuring water waves. Somerset219 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about Donnie the comic book Super Hero? :D Apart from his strength etc its still such a caricature of the film. I mean his other "powers" are basically everything happening to him. And i don't think I'd call Christ a superhero. What do you think about Kelly's point of View?--Net2rock 10:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When he first gave that perspective in the commentary, I thought it was totally cool. I mean it really made sense, but he really could have done it a little better, because you really don't get that impression by watching the film. You just get the impression that something is going to happen. It says in the time travel book that he could conjure fire and water, (ie; school flood, house burning) but we can't really take these as attributes because for 1) we see him break the water main, 2) we see him pour gas everywhere in the house, 3) he seems to have a history of arson, when he burnt down an abandoned house. The only super power we could maybe construe from him was the axe in the solid brass statue, signifing great strength, but even that seems not likely. Considering the they made me do it next to the statue was in Franks handwriting, perhaps signaling that he may have done it... you know, being supernatural and all. I mean I love the idea of him being a superhero, I just wish it came more across like that. Oh and also, his "telekenisis" ability to send the engine through a worm hole. I don't think anybody got that without being told about it. I think that's maybe why it ironically has such a cult following, because it's too down-to-earth and yet so abstract.


 * The one thing I just thought of, that I could see his point of view in, was his discussion with his science teacher. When Donnie mentions that he can see things before they happen, but the teacher states that it would be a paradox, because then you could change the future, hence not being able to fortell it. But then Donnie says, "not if you're in gods' channel", perhaps signifieing that he was in gods' "channel", making him a superhero. Somerset219 00:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Frank
If Frank is the manipulated dead because he died in the tangent universe, who called Donnie out of his bed to create the other universe where Frank died?

Because those that are killed in the parallel universe become messengers who have the ability to travel back and forth in this same parrallel universe.--Net2rock 21:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * from what i can get from the commentary is that frank was a messenger simply because he was "chosen" by the technology creating the tangant universe, otherwise gretchen wouldv'e been a messenger too.:) Somerset219 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't he say Gretchen is a messenger etc etc pinpointing in direction or stuff like that?


 * who's he? What's etc etc? What's stuff like that? I have no idea who you are, who you're referencing or talking about. Somerset219 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Blockbuster
This seems to be fairly deeply entrenched, but I'll give it a go anyway. The Blockbuster card we see near the end of the movie isn't an anachronism. I joined Blockbuster in 1988 (at least five months before the time the movie was meant to take place) and the card I got the very first day looked identical to the one in this movie. (in fact my "modern" card is a gold one with a magnetic strip on the back). (DrZarkov 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC))


 * the blockbuster card was there for free advertisement by the director, according to the directors cut. Somerset219 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot
I've read the plot synopsis, and I'm confused as to what happens and when in the movie. For example, when does Donnie meet Frank the person and when does he realise he's the same as Frank the bunny? I think the plot needs two subsections. First, a section that describes the events of the movie in the order they occur in the movie. And a second section that describe the official interpretation (i.e. the text that is already there). That would make it a lot easier to understand for people who haven't seen the movie (like me). Thanks to the person willing to help out! -- Ritchy 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please oh please feel free to edit the plot. Its horribly done with a lot of POV writing and fan fiction. Somerset219 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What would people think of having an interpretation section in the main article, where there are multiple interpretations (Given they are founded) of the time-travel/theological/social/etc paradoxes?
 * Only if there are multiple reliable sources to back up each interpretation, so it doesn't look like randomly selected reviewers' opinions. And then of course there are those who bash the ending as an unimaginative cop-out. –Pomte 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvey reference in trivia section
This quote: *Frank Capra's film Harvey (and the play upon which it is based) also contains a large rabbit-like figure that only the main character can see.

I changed to "Henry Koster's film...", as Harvey was not associated in any way whatsoever with Capra, and was directed, in actuality, by Henry Koster. HaeSuse 20:22 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, I find the mentioning of "Harvey" to be sort of out of place - at least in a section that's supposed to contain trivia about or connected to Donnie Darko - unless of course, there's a source connecting the two. Otherwise, I doubt that being a large invisible rabbit is good enough to be included.

Second, I'd like to add that especially the pilosophy around Donnie being a "Living Receiver", has a strong equivalent in the plot of The Maxx, a comic book (from the 1990ies) written by Sam Kieth, tho time-travel is not part of it. While unconscious after being hit by a car a person comes into contact with matter from a parallel reality which transforms him into The Maxx. The whole event also connects him to Julie Winters and, as there are lessons to be learnt, they (but mostly Maxx) can't help but do what they do. To round off the confusion for everybody who HASN'T read The Maxx: Maxx is Julie's spirit animal. . . which happens to be a rabbit!

Should this be added to the trivia section?

Oh and the 42 minutes of Donnie's remaining time doubtlessly point to "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"! And ain't the full time some real cycle in our world? The Moon? -80.135.152.249 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've simply deleted the entry on Harvey. As stated previously, it doesn't really fit in. -Blahziin_Rav

causal chain
Shoudn't we paint alltogether a picture of the causal chain in the group here somewhen? I mean: "causal" here loosened from time (conventionally it is assumed that the cause has to happen at a point of time before its effect). I mean somehow like this (with timestamps $$t_i$$ where $$i > j \Rightarrow t_i > t_j$$):


 * 1) (timestamp t0) donnie's birth
 * 2) (timestamp t1) donnie's first school day
 * 3) (timestamp t2) donnie goes to sleep in his own bed on 1988-10-02
 * 4) ??? (unknown sub-chain...)
 * 5) (timestamp t8) engine ripps of the plane (btw.: who says that the plane crashes? there should be more than one engine on most planes of that size...)
 * 6) (timestamp t9) the engine moves through a wormhole
 * 7) (timestamp t2) engine crashes into donnie's empty room
 * 8) (timestamp t3) donnie floods his school (this tightens the rapport to rabbit-frank?)
 * 9) (timestamp t4) donnie burns the house of Mr. Swayze's (whose character in Dirty Dancing was btw. also with sex-related findings) character
 * 10) (timestamp t5) donnie disturbs the housebreakers in Mrs. Sparrow's house
 * 11) (timestamp t6) gretchen gets killed by rabbit-frank
 * 12) (timestamp t7) donnie watches the strange cloud-like formation in the sky
 * 13) (timestamp t2) the engine crushes donnie and the effects of the previous causes become partially effective immediately

The question would be now, what caused effect number 5+6 (at t8+t9; the falling engine and its time travel)? Maybe gretchen died in the sub-chain #4, so that donnie's, gretchen's and rabbit-frank's combined will created the time-loop?

--213.54.67.190 10:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahah, no, the question is what is "???"!

No Opinions, Please
I removed the Offshooting Theories section, as it meets the conditions of what Wikipedia is not as original research:

If we believe that undead/dead Frank is the voice of God, this means that human Frank and dead Frank are not the same people at all; instead God's vessel has been chosen to appear in the form of the dead Frank. With this interpretation, when dead Frank tells Donnie "I'm so sorry" in the movie theater, he is not referring to the death of Gretchen, but to the fact that Donnie must give his own life to save the universe.

It should also be noted that this theory is substantiated by the reference to "The Last Temptation of Christ" during the fright night double feature. This draws a parrallel between the two films, where in The Last Temptation Christ is tempted with the choice of having his own life, or choosing the life of those whom he loves (or wishes to save). Donnie too is confronted with the same choice to save Gretchen or to save himself. In the end, it could be argued that he choses God's path, and sacrifices himself. This is also reflected in the guilt of all of the Manipulated Living, similar to the statment often made by some Christians: "We all Crucified Christ".

If this is not original thought and you can cite a respectable source for this interpretation, you may add this back in. -Orayzio 08:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The "two different Franks" theory is not original thought
The first deleted paragraph is not "original thought" at all....Lawrence Persons's extensive take (linked in the article -- http://www.locusmag.com/2003/Reviews/Person04_Darko.html) goes into the "two Franks" theory. I agree, though, that the second paragraph was a bit much....In short, I put back the first paragraph.

Trivia Cleanup
I edited the trivia section and removed a few items that I thought should be mentioned here:


 * As noted in my edit summary, I removed "very relevant" from the sentence about the double feature on the grounds that it does not represent a neutral point-of-view, is not backed up with references, and (most importantly) shouldn't be in the "trivia" section if it's that important.
 * I removed "The poster on Donnie's bedroom wall is M. C. Escher's "Eye"" on the basis that it is not noteworthy. It's no more noteworthy than the brand of jeans that Donnie wears or anything else about the contents of his house.
 * I removed "Easter Egg: Frank's car is driven past Donnie's in the very first scene." because, first, it's not an Easter egg (media) and second, it's not noteworthy. I almost removed the item about the child actor that appears in three different scenes, but I decided to leave it in.
 * I removed "When watching the video Cunningham gave the class to view, a small boy runs to hug Cunningham, he hugs him in return, but while Cunningham releases the boy, he grabs the child's bottom quickly giving a small hint to his perversity." because the end of the sentence is pure speculation or should be backed by a primary source.
 * Finally, I removed the Last Temptation section comparison because it's been removed and reinserted repeatedly and because it should be backed up with references (if, in fact, several notable sources have commented on it). Also, it doesn't belong in the trivia section. If someone can find several notable sources backing up the comparison of the two films, it should be placed in the Interpretations section.

Also, I tried to remove redundant links - wikilinks should appear only for the the first occurrence of the subject in the article. (For example, The Evil Dead should be wiki-linked only the first time it appears in the article. -Orayzio 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have another relevant reference--I think!--from the movie. The phrase Grandma Death whispers into Donnie's ear seems to be a reference to something C. P. Snow wrote in "The Two Cultures." The most common quote referencing what Grandma Death said goes something like follows:

“...the individual condition of each of us is tragic. Each of us is alone: sometimes we escape from solitariness, through love or affection or perhaps creative moments, but those triumphs of life are pools of light we make for ourselves while the edge of the road is black: each of us dies alone.” C. P. Snow from The Two Cultures

The full text can be found at http://info.med.yale.edu/therarad/summers/snow.htm

I'm not sure if I this is completely valid so I would like other people to take a look. This is my first time contributing and I don't want to make a stupid mistake! :-) DementedChihuahua 23:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also edited the trivia section a bit, taking out the part that confused Ariel the Unicorn/Pony with Ariel from the Disney movie. 16 Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.25.205.90 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

external link
I had previously removed the following line from the article:
 * Some fans and critics feel that the inclusion of the book excerpts gives away too much.

with the edit summary "the ext lked review (with a decayed link) does not support this assertion."

This edit was reverted by Longlivefolkmusic with the edit summary "please do not delete a cited bit on the appearance of the chapters in the Director's cut."

My numbered responses are:
 * 1) The external link is decayed (500 error), so it doesn't support anything.  It would be nice if people reverting would actually look at what they are reverting to.
 * 2) The new location of the review here, which I bothered to look at before removing, has this to say about the chapters: ""The Director's Cut uses a good deal more of the writing from Sparrow's book than the first movie did to help make more literal exactly what is happening to Donnie. That the new text still doesn't clear things up entirely is beside the point."  This does not support the assertion given in the article. (Where is the "gives away too much" part?)
 * 3) Unless the external link is going to a review aggregator or something similar, it cannot support multiple persons feelings, per "Some fans and critics feel".  This is a classic weasel wording, refusing to state WHO are these critics.

In summation, bad link to a review that doesn't support a weasel-worded assertion. I'm removing the line again. I obviously would have no problems if someone would bother placing a citation (which is different from an unsupportive external link) stating something like "Critic John Smith hates the chapters" with a backing source.- BanyanTree 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Website
I'm surprised there is no mention of the film's website other than in external links. Unless I am mistaken, it was the only place where the information from The Philosphy of Time Travel could be found prior to the release of the Director's Cut.

It also includes several things related to the story that I believe are considered canon. Off the top of my head:

-Cunningham commits suicide

-There is a government agency (I don't recall if its name is given) that is aware of the tangent universe, and appears to be trying to suppress all knowledge of it

-Monitoff is killed in a car accident (presumably for his knowledge of The Philosophy of Time Travel and possibly his connection to Donnie), and it is implied that the aforementioned government agency is behind the accident (if I remember correctly, there is a part that says he was hit by a black SUV that quickly drove away)

-The same government agency looks at the serial number from the jet engine (from the tangent universe), and finds the intact plane (residing in the primary universe) that also has a jet engine with that serial number, which allows the agency to confirm that the engine is from the tangent universe

It wouldn't make sense to include these details in the plot summary, but I think it seems perfectly reasonable to have a section titled something along the lines of "Story Details Revealed on the Film's Website." There is a considerable amount of information there that seems quite relevant.Smooth Nick 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale?
I deleted her from the cast section. Is citing her as a character in the movie relevant? She only appears for one scene and for a short time.

Uhm
Does anyone else think it is redundant to have this article entitled "Donnie Darko (film)" as opposed to just "Donnie Darko?" (Some discussion would have been good before moving the article around) V-Man737 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was moved to pave way for a disambiguation page between the film article and the newly-created Donnie Darko (character). Someone has just redirected the disambig back here. I agree that this should move back to Donnie Darko, regardless of whether the character article remains (see its talk page). Pomte 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is interesting! Yeah, that character page isn't exactly FA status. Sad that there aren't other movies with Donnie in them to justify an article like that. I'll keep a weather eye out for the AfD. V-Man737 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, that was me. I guess I should have checked here before doing that kind of thing. Depressed Marvin 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the former redirect of Donnie Darko in order to move the film article back to Donnie Darko. The film is definitely the primary topic on "Donnie Darko" being that the character is a subset of the film. Cburnett 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"mad world" in pop culture
The Song "Mad World" (the Michael Andrews cover) from the ending montage is later used in the commercials for the XBOX 360 Video Game Gears of War -- Added this to the Pop. Culture section...

Nincubus99x 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * source? V-Man737 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is described at Mad World. This isn't Donnie Darko in popular culture, but a song made famous by Donnie Darko in popular culture, so it's questionable whether it should be mentioned here. What do others think? –Pomte 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If i am not mistaken the Michael Andrews cover of the song was made exclusively for Donnie Darko. So if anything uses the Michael Andrews cover of the song they are essentialy refrencing Donnie Darko 218.186.9.1 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that an XBOX game is essentially referencing Donnie Darko in this way. Even so, look how many TV appearances Mad World has made. They can't all fit here. –Pomte 06:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

pop culture
I was replaying the game Bully when I noticed that on the games Halloween sequence the main character, Jimmy, is wearing a costume not too unlike Donnie's, is it worth mentioning?Michael Cook 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source that asserts this, you could cite it in the article. V-Man - T/C 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

cellar door
why does it say "see also franz kafka" in the cellar door being the most beautiful words part? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.69.36 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * What the...! I thought I got rid of it! Well, it's gone now. V-Man - T/C 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

RE-WRITE
I have a problem with the literature in the PLOT section. "Donnie's mother and sister experience turbulence on their return flight as Donnie telekinetically detaches an engine from their plane." Donnie did NOT 'telekinetically' detach the engine from that airplane. That engine was going to fall off no matter what due to the 'time-loop' paradox. Their was also no evidence of Donnie having telekinesis’ through out the movie. please revise.Hurleyman 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the meaning to the movie according to the director. You should get the director's cut and go over the stuff in it and then you'll understand too that Donnie in the parralel dimension has to save the world, and the only way he can do it is by destroying the parralel world by sending the jet engine through time and killing himself in the past. The beauty of the first film is that there is no real explanation. Acidburn24m 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the directors cut and I'm not disputing what the 'point' is because thats what I believe also. Its just that he never used telekinesis at any point in the movie to do anything let alone make an engine come off an airplane. That engine was going to fall off anyways because of the turbalance the worm hole caused. Saying that Donnie made the engine fall off with his mind is false information.Hurleyman 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Donniedarkodvd.jpeg
Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags?
This article needs some serious spoiler tags. Sadly I do not know how to add them.


 * Any plot summary within an article about a movie is going to contain spoilers. See Spoiler. –Pomte 09:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Therapist's Office
Is it just me, or does his therapist's office look exactly like that of none other than Sigmund Freud's? I say this after seeing this photo in the Psychology portal. Perhaps this can be added to the article? CrimsonScholar 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary
I have updated the plot summary using an older (and more in-depth) analysis of the movie that was written earlier but has since been taken out. Also, I added the spoiler tags. -- Sharkface217 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

South Park reference

 * In South Park episode "Make Love, Not Warcraft" Cartman says a phrase "If you had a chance right now to go back in time and stop Hitler, would you do it?" which is similar to one Gretchen says in the movie. Any ideas? -- Sharpbee 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Hitler, pretty much anything involving a debate on Time Travel discussess the morality of stopping Hitler. So, no.  I don't.69.64.10.249 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Donnie Darko, 2001, Advertising, limited Release, and WTC
This is me remembering, and I haven't bothered to Google anything yet, but I recall hearing that a lot of the lack of advertising it got had to do with the fact that it was coming out so close to the WTC disaster and the general distaste at the time for anything involving airplanes in accidents... so they decided to downplay the advertising, not run it in that many theaters (or at least not push for a wider release later on) and so on.... am I completely incorrect here? If not, shouldn't there be a note about that in the release? As written, the line about "released to a tepid response"... shouldn't that have some kind of note about how they are related? Assuming, at least, someone out there suggested that they are related.69.64.10.249 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

MPAA R rating "drug content"
there aren't any, even vague, references to drugs in this film. unless it means the medicinal "pills". am i wrong?--82.26.82.215 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's lots of drinking, tobacco smoking, and a brief shot of something being snorted during school. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Midlothian High School
This movie was based off of the High school that Richard Kelly attended in Midlothian, Virginia Midlothian High School.
 * I've removed both instances of this from the article unless someone has a good source to add. This topic was addressed in The Donnie Darko Book (p. X) in an interview by Kevin Conroy Scott, but aside from talking about the High School he attended, Kelly does not claim that the school in the film was based on Midlothian.  Now, perhaps someone can find the actual interview where he says it is and add it back into the article. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin smith commentary
Does anyone know why he was chosen or if he had any other associations with the film? Jepetto (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "WashPo says he was a friend of the director, Richard Kelly. Skomorokh  16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes, but i was wondering if he actually had anything to do with production? Jepetto (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Smith had no official ties to the film, and there is no reason to believe he had anything to do with it, the commentary came about for the simple reason that Kelly wasn’t confidant to repeat a second commentary for his film and to make it entertaining – So he called upon his friend Kevin (Who is a prolific commenter on his own movies, and is adept at public speaking/entertaining) this also provides a viewers/fans perspective on the film and is somebody for Kelly to bounce off. This is not that uncommon for directors (not as comfortable as others in the spotlight) to do. 194.72.35.70 (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Andy, Sheffield, England

Cultural References
This entire section of the article seems a random list of trivia. Delete? 99.174.233.4 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, delete it. These sections are a nuisance on Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

??
Steven seagal is not in this movie. --208.118.200.168 (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC) xion :: That is original research, therefore not Wikipedia worthy.

Budget & Revenue inconsistencies
The film is listed as having a $4.5 million budget and a $6 million budget. A similar discrepancy exists for revenue. Not sure which numbers are correct, but certainly not all of them are. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.168.121 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well spotted, and thanks for the tip. I don't know which figures are correct either, so I've raised the issue at the Films Wikiproject . Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ...And received a response within 10 minutes. I've updated the page according to Box Office Mojo.  The inconsistency with revenue might have been because the Box Office Mojo page doesn't have data for total lifetime gross outside the U.S., so misleadingly gives the U.S figure as the total worldwide total gross figure .  Don't know what happened with the budget figure though.  We still need a source for worldwide gross in the lead.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, seems Box Office Mojo might be wrong about this one. I'll fix the article according to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. (Edit: since archived here.) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)