Talk:Dark City (1998 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Spoiler warning

To keep with the standard, let's keep the spoiler warning at the top of the article. This article does contain spoilers, and a link to the warning page would be useful for vistors to this page. -- LGagnon 16:00, Dec 18, 2003

Commentary track

Heh. It took me all of 20 seconds to remember Ebert did the commentary track, get up, check my DVD to verify it, sit back down and I notice you already added it. You're just too fast for me, apparently. :) RADICALBENDER★ 04:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Schreber

Someone edited the "Similarities to other works" section recently and gave middle names for the real and fictional Daniel Schrebers. I haven't seen any sources to back either up, and I think someone should explain where they got them from. -- LGagnon 03:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Googling for "Daniel Paul Schreber" and "Daniel Poe Schreber" will get you plenty of people who independently agree with User:Goblin. Which is not to say that they're not all wrong, mind you. --Paul A 03:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article located at Dark City (1998) instead of Dark City (which redirects to Dark City (1998))? bbx 19:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was previously disambiguated... I've restored that now, but in a different format. --Joy [shallot] 22:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The sun

Someone changed John's creation of the sun to him turning the city towards the sun. Is there any proof that he actually did this? As far as I remember, the sun wasn't there until after John used his powers to make it exist. -- LGagnon 18:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I watched the movie last night and it's said quite specifically a few times that John can control the machines under the city, allowing him to control everything within the city. The sun, obviously, is beyond that. The camerawork at the end of the movie definitely gives the impression that the city is being rotated towards an existing sun rather than one being created whole cloth. I didn't make that change, but I agree with it. - Matt Shepherd
My impression was that John either created a representation of the sun, or allowed the existing one to shine through - where it had been hidden.

--Mr kitehead 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Category dieselpunk

I don't understand why it should not be allowed to be placed within the dieselpunk category when it blatantly promotes the ideas and themes prevalent in the Dieselpunk world. Explain to me otherwise, because I see no reason for it not to listed alongside other works of fiction within the category. Piecraft 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't dieselpunk require diesel as a major element? It isn't in Dark City. Could you provide some examples for your argument instead of just "check the article", because that doesn't point out your point clear enough. -- LGagnon 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Examples of the dieselpunk themes that exist in Dark City would mostly be the advanced technology/society based upon the late 1930-50s world which is pretty clear I'm sure. Also the inner-workings of the actual planet which is composed of gears and cogs and other forms of mechanical construction present another aspect of the diesel-working universe. The whole idea behind the planet and an "apocalypse" also presents purpose for Dark City being dieselpunk. In otherwords as is explained in the article (this is why I told you to look over it), a post-apocalyptic world where society and its people have forgotten their past is later overrun and ruled by mechanical technology which can be seen in the movie. There are so many elements which make Dark City perfectly fit into this category. Let's look over it again:
  • -society based around 1930s-1950s
  • -technology also seems to be an advanced form which is based around 1930s-1950s
  • -the post-apocalyptic scenario which is a dominant sub-theme to dieselpunk, however it seems that after the "cataclysm" in Dark City that society was stabilised within a time period, unliek most case scenarios in post-apocalyptic dieselpunl, but this only further justifies the movie further because instead of regressing into a primitive Mad Max landscape, Dark City was saved by "hidden aliens" who have reverted society back to a nostalgic era.
  • -the construction and physical working of the planet is a sample of the style and type of technology present in dieselpunk, formed on outdated technology only in based on more modern concepts - the same can be seen with Steampunk (steam-based) and Cyberpunk (cybernetics) - in this case we see atomic technology which is clearly how the planet functions as a floating island. Remember Dieselpunk also = Atomicpunk and does not completely rely on a world whose only source of fuel is diesel, Dark City would have us believe it is set in an alternative era of the 1950s at the start of the film (before we find out the truth) and thus we would automatically assume a post-WW2 environment where fuel is scarce in any case - this is the basic element in most casea. However in Dark City it's pretty straightforward that the technology although modified is still based on the 1950s which means to say that it is majorly inspired by diesel and atomic technologies. And the very inner-workings of the planet's core reactor also provides evidence of this as well.

In summary this movie if anything defines the genre perfectly through its narrative and the themes present. It presents a dystopic world, it also presents a sense of "lacking" within society along with the major elements present within the dieselpunk universe which are listed on the main article examples such as The Red Scare (invasion), Atomic Age (nuclear power being introduced), Suburbia (estructuring of society into new community developments), Space Race (conquest of Outer Space) and so on... each of these factors have been manipulated to fit the world that is Dark City. The film's look and style borrow from Noir and Expressionism two major components to the look and overall style of Dieselpunk - other examples would be Metropolis or Sky Captain. Piecraft 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The dieselpunk category is a disaster. It's a group of unrelated articles retroactively categorized and shoehorned to fit the vision of a handful of fans. The creators of nearly all the works in that category never intended them to be thought of in that light, and almost certainly never even considered it. - EurekaLott 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Consider Film Noir; your characterization also applies to it ("creaters ... never intended ... never considered") as it was a term not coined until well after the bulk of the films were created, and the creaters were not aware that they were working within a genre. Somegeek 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Firstly EurekaLott your argument in wrong, the category was put up for deletion by YOU and unbelievably everyone voted to keep it in because they see it as much as a relevant category as Steampunk or Cyberpunk. I doubt that Jules Verne or H.G. Wells ever considered their works of fiction as Steampunk. Of course the creators of most of the works of fiction in the Dieselpunk category never intended them to be thought in that light originally, but as time progresses it has been categorised as so by the followers of Dieselpunk. It is a theme that works alongside Cyberpunk and Steampunm to justify a certain world and its technology. Before you begin spouting off your own opinion I would regret to guide you to the Steampunk category page where Bride of Frankenstein is listed as well as other "unfamiliar" works as would have them called. Steampunk and Dieselpunk are still relatively new genres and therefore only have a handful of writers or artists who carry it's theme, whereas this category is merely attemtping to place past works of fiction.


If steampunk requires steam and cyperpunk requires cybernetics, dieselpunk should require diesel. I have no opinion on the merits of dieselpunk as a category, but to apply it to an entry diesel should be required. Maybe the City runs on diesel. Maybe the City runs on mice. I don't know, but nothing in the movie or piecraft's argument suggests diesel. --Ccranium 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point but you seem to forget that dieselpunk is also known as atomicpunk - it's a combination of both nuclear power and diesel fuel which is a dominant factor to 1930s-1950s society - are we supposed to believe simply because they do not physically show us diesel fuel or even refer to it by discussing it in the mvoie that there is no probable or even possibility that the world of Dark City is based around it? I already pointed out their technology and even the planet's core reactor which are all in my opinion appear to be mechanical constructs that seem to be part of atomic/dieselpunk. If you can convince me otherwise that the reactor in the planet was cybernetics or steam then please do so - otherwise to me it seems pretty clear that it works as an engine - and I am willing to believe it must function on some sort of fuel. So whether it's nuclear driven or diesel-activated I am more than 99.9% it is based around a modern constrcut of the technology from the 1930s-1950s era - only in a modernised or advanced state. Therefore you have yet to point out to me how this movie is not dieselpunk-affiliated seeing as so far it seems to fall intot he category quite easily with all the related themes and technology in it. Piecraft 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
By your criteria all work in which the engine type is not specifically disambiguated from Diesel would be acceptable. Moreover an unimpressive 622 results on Google for "atomicpunk" belies your "also known as" claim -- perhaps a gauge of actual usage should be applied to the ever-expanding "-punk" retroactive categorization currently plauging anything vaguely resembling speculative fiction. Pndmnm 20:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
According to the Dieselpunk entry, "Dieselpunk is an alternate-history environment in which the most important aspect of society is diesel fuel, and the machinery that depends upon it." The most important aspect of Dark City's society is not diesel fuel, from the movie whatever fuel source drives the city is completely irrelevant to the story. Other punk classifications make heavy use of it's defining feature. In steampunk, steam engines and machinery driven by steam are heavily featured. In cyberpunk networks and cyberspace and interactions between people and technology are heaviliy featured. Diesel and/or atomic energy were not at all features of Dark City. It is dystopic, it is alternate history, it is not dieselpunk. --Ccranium 20:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that -punk genres don't rely only to technology and being centered around the first element of the word (steam, diesel, atomic or whatever), it also relies on look and feel, atmosphere, and general mood, as well as this alternative 'could be but isn't' feeling. For example New Rose Hotel, Robocop and Rise of the Dragon are classified as cyberpunk although the main theme is absent: cyberspace (of course there are cybernetics in Robocop, but robotics is not the main theme). What makes them cyberpunk is the world they belong and most important: aesthetics. IMHO Dark City's aesthetics can be classfied only as Dieselpunk. Yes, it's retroactive classification, but language and words were invented for this reason, especially since it is compared to Brasil and Metropolis. Pictureuploader 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have a perfectly good phrase for that 'could be but isn't' feeling, which is speculative fiction. Adding a classification taxonomy which completely divorces the meaning of the label from the component words is a legitimate but poor use of language, and justifying it only by internal claims (for example, declaring that Dark City is "dieselpunk" by comparing it to other films which have already been declared "dieselpunk") is an error in distinction which will only lead to confusion. Provide me with a list of critera which can be applied to a work to determine that it is "dieselpunk," and which when taken together do not apply to any other genre, and I will be satisfied. Pndmnm 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


What makes them cyberpunk is the world they belong and most important: aesthetics. IMHO Dark City's aesthetics can be classfied only as Dieselpunk. So you're just applying an arbitrary definition of what a "diesel" aesthetic is? What's the point of picking "dieselpunk" instead of "gaspunk" or "ottopunk" (after all, the engines all look pretty much the same) or "Safewaybrandfignewtonlookalikepunk"? --Dandy

Because I am not aware of the genres gaspunk or ottopunk, which I think are fictitous examples by you. Dieselpunk is an attested terminology and an established aesthetic genre, as well as Steampunk and Atomicpunk, which Dark City clearly isn't. If there is actually a genre called Gaspunk, I would happily argue about whether Dark City is the one or the other Pictureuploader 13:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
So basically all of you are saying what's the point of having a Cyberpunk or Steampunk categories? because why is it that as Pictureuploader has already explained such movies as Repo Man, New Rose Hotel and Robocop are classified under Cyberpunk? Or why is it that Bride of Frankenstein, From the Earth to the Moon or The Island of Dr. Moreau are classified as Steampunk? Explain to me why? In NONE of those works of fiction are steam or cybernetics present. ALbeit Robocop as mentioned has 'robotics but does not seem to possess the same elements as for instance The Matrix in terms of cybernetics and cyberspace. The reason is because Cyberpunk is classified as the whole shebang! And to explain that is basically to analyse and explore its major themes, the atmosphere and the world to which most of the films and literary works take place in. The same is applied to Steampunk so why can it not be applied in Dieselpunk when it clearly is the same? The game Children of the Sun is mainly fantasy-based however is set within the context of a dieselpunk world as Lewis Pollak has mentioned - and it was this term that he used to create the definition of the 1930s-1950s alternative time to which most movies and literary works of cition can be applied to. In the case of giving you a list of how Dark City would fit into the dieselpunk world - well look at my above statements, I don't understand otherwise how you would have missed all the elements which are staring you right in the face. Dark City is and I quote a review from IMDb Proyas takes ideas and ambience from many other movies but integrates them all neatly into Dark City. Gotham City is clearly seen as is Metropolis and other influences such as Ed Hopper's "Nighthawks" dominate in the diner scenes. The forty-ish era (yet strangely futuristic) city is known to be populated, and yet it is ominously empty (hence one of Hopper's main themes, isolation in large cities). (It's especially quiet at midnight, hehehehe... ;D ) This 40's era ambience together with the sci-fi fantasy undercurrent makes for a very interesting feeling while watching. At the end of the day it's just a category listing, if it's going to effect you that bad then Heaven's to Betsy don't let me bother you then, if it's simply to allow an easier access for people browsing literary and cultural categories to gather an idea of the "type" of work that is listed then by all means leave it out! Piecraft 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Piecraft, what we are saying is that you saying "This movie is dieselpunk because it shares a few traits with these other things I say are dieselpunk" is not a compelling argument. Perhaps the discussion needs to take place at Talk:Dieselpunk to narrow down your definition of it. The things you use to describe the aesthetic of the movie are not unique to dieselpunk. Yes, this movie likely shares an aesthetic with cyber- and steampunk, but the question is what makes it dieselpunk. Is it simply the time period? The alternate history? It is science fiction. It is alternate history. --Ccranium 01:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole dieselpunk thing seems highly problematic to me. "Cyberpunk" was a consciously adopted idea, and was immediately taken up by critics, etc. "Steampunk" also seems to be something which authors have consciously accepted as a genre. On the otherhand, "Dieselpunk" seems to consist largely of back-appropriations of things that did not consider themselves to be "Dieselpunk". Let's look first at the list of Cyberpunk literature:

The term was quickly appropriated as a label to be applied to the works of Bruce Sterling, John Shirley, William Gibson, Rudy Rucker, Michael Swanwick, Pat Cadigan, Lewis Shiner, Richard Kadrey, and others. Of these, Sterling became the movement's chief ideologue, thanks to his fanzine Cheap Truth. (See also John Shirley's articles on Sterling and Rucker [4].) It then goes on to note that Others noted that almost all traits claimed to be uniquely cyberpunk could in fact be found in older writers' works — often citing J. G. Ballard, Philip K. Dick, Harlan Ellison, Samuel R. Delany, even William S. Burroughs. Now, the former part of the list constitutes a conscious literary movement, or, at least, a movement recognized at the time by critics. The latter, influences section, is more questionable. It is to be noted that of those authors, only Dick is in Category:Cyberpunk. Even so, the article clearly distinguishes the Cyberpunk movement, as a semicoherent literary movement, from the ideas of cyberpunk, which are traced back to earlier influences.

Now let's look at the list of Dieselpunk literature:

Beyond the complete incoherence of this list (Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang, 1984, War of the Worlds, and a Tom Clancy book are the same genre?), it is to be noted that, at a guess, none of these works was part of any conscious literary "dieselpunk" movement. They don't even have the same level of thematic coherence that the second list of cyberpunk influences (Dick, Delaney, etc.) have. They are just a list of books that have been appropriated to the apparently virtually non-existent genre of "dieselpunk". john k 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this problem goes far beyond Dieselpunk. The list of literary punk genres is riddled with articles that consist entirely of back-appropriations, including (but not limited to) Sandalpunk, Nazipunk, and Middlepunk. While there is a strange sort of preciousness in Piecraft's and Pictureuploader's desire to categorize a wide range of literary works as reflecting an "x-punk" sensibility, the lack of references coupled with Piecraft's admission that there is little information to be found on these extremely obscure literary punk genres leads me to think that the articles are little more than extended POV exercises. Avogadro94 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole mess needs to be deleted? john k 19:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems like the best way to deal with the situation, otherwise we could easily see conflicts break out over whether a literary work should be categorized as "x-punk" or "y-punk". These categories appear so subjective that they are rendered meaningless. Avogadro94 19:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to delete every shred of it, but at the very least, the articles and categories need a severe pruning. Unfortunately, the subject did not generate this level of attention when I nominated the dieselpunk category for deletion earlier this month, and it may be too soon to re-nominate it. - EurekaLott 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

whats it rated?

i dont think the article tells the rating ... --Nerd42 03:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's at the bottom of the Technical data section. -- LGagnon 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Alex Proyas and Why The Strangers Use Knives

I remember that, when this movie was released, there was some todo made about why the strangers used knives in this movie instead of something like a gun. The reason given was that Proyas really wanted to avoid the use of guns as much as possible, due to the tragedy surrounding the film "The Crow", which he directed immediately prior to this one. He couldn't justify removing all guns from the film, which is why the humans still used them, but that he jumped at the chance to give the Strangers a different weapon. I recall this being brought up in an interview or two, but it wasn't something that anyone associated with the film really like to bring up too much. Thing is, I can't seem to find any decent information to confirm this now. Anyone got any leads? Did I just imagine all of this? --Reverend Loki 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical reception

I know this will upset the fanboy celebration of this movie, but why not something about the massively negative critical and audience reception to this movie? Ebert liked it, but so what? He's only one critic among many and not terribly influential, despite being famous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs) 14:44, June 19, 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Rotten Tomatoes critic meter registered a 77% favorable rating from 52 critic reviews for this movie. I don't think I'd use "massively negative" to describe 12/52 negative reviews. It also received an average 6.8/10 review. Compare it to a similar film, Strange Days, from a few years earlier. For Strange Days, the budget was twice as large and it grossed only a third as much worldwide when compared to Dark City. I'd say the audience reception of Dark City was just fine (gross box office broke even with it's estimated budget which most movies can't say). I think you are wrong on both accounts. ju66l3r 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, aside from that fact that "fanboy" might be a violation of WP:CIV, if you can state your case in an appropriately WP:NPOV way, you're obviously welcom to be bold and edit the article. But please note that lots of movies that are now seen as great were not immediate critical or box-office successes. The Wizard of Oz comes to mind as does The Shawshank Redemption. Atlant 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: this topic was started by a now-blocked trolling user. Acalamari 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality rating for this Film Article

So, I was looking at Articles By Quality, and was wondering about where this one fit into their rating scheme. Personally, I find myself wishing there was a level between "Start" and "B", though using just what they have given us, I'm thinking it fits best into the "B" category. It definitely has a way to go before climbing higher than that. Ayways, I thought I would solicit opinions from anyone else watching this article before taking any action. Folks? --Reverend Loki 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, having just read the entire article immediately after I watched the film for the first time on dvd (it's 4am now and I certainly recommend watching this title late in the evening), I felt the need to say that the article, despite being a bit short, seems very well written to me. I particularly enjoyed the "similarities to other works" section. It provides a certain depth without being excessively long. I checked the film articles by quality category you've mentioned and my vote would be somewhere between "B" and "GA" classes. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nosferatu

The aliens remind me of Nosferatu. --Error 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Alien visitation films

I reverted the addition of Category:Alien visitation films to this article, but I see my edit was also reverted. I feel the category is not appropriate here, for several reasons. The category description refers to "films [that] have been made about aliens visiting the Earth", and Earth doesn't even appear in Dark City. It's not exactly Close Encounters of the Third Kind or The Day the Earth Stood Still. While it's possible that the residents of the city were abducted from Earth, there's no reason to assume that's the case, and frankly, it doesn't matter to the story. I still think the article has no business being in the category. - EurekaLott 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I put it into Alien visitation films, I have to agree it doesn't belong there. I have been sorting out the cats on so many films...mistakes happen! Anyway, I have now moved it to Space adventure films which is more accurate as the Alien visitation cat was intended for films about Aliens on Earth. Mallanox 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think Category:Space adventure films is more appropriate. The category has no description, but I assume it includes movies that feature people flying around in spaceships. If that's the case, the category fits Dark City just as poorly as Category:Alien visitation films did. - EurekaLott 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
While it's possible that the residents of the city were abducted from Earth, there's no reason to assume that's the case,

Dr. Schrieber explicitly states "We were abducted". Although he doesn't say "from the Earth", it's pretty clear from the general setting of the movie that these people are humans and the setting is an Earthlike mileau; I think one can safely conclude the subjects of the experiment were abducted directly from the Earth.

Atlant 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

About muting the beginning of the film

I have just reverted the addition (again) of the line "Many fans of the film prefer to keep the film on mute for the first 5 minutes as it gives away the entire plot twist". No one who has added it that I see has given any reasoning for why it should be included, while those who have removed it have often explained why. The statement is without any citation, yet makes grand statements about the viewing practices of this movie's fans. This is exactly the type of claim that needs citation of reliable sources in order to be included in this article. Please don't try and add it again unless you can convince us of the statement's validity through documentation. --Reverend Loki 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twist ending?

The article should mention aboyt similarity to a scene in "Reqiem for a Dream" where Jennifer Conelly stands at the molo in a red dress ans the guy looks at her from behind, initially blinded by the sun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.16.132.162 (talk) 23:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in the list of films with a twist ending? I didn't see any twist when I watched it. Does anyone else agree that it should be removed?156.34.211.124 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The twist is that the dark city is, in fact, an island in space. It's more of a surprise if you didn't listen to the voice-over that begins the film.
Atlant 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you supposed to listen to the narration? The people who made the movie put it there for a reason...131.202.129.50 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the narration was added ex-post-facto to help folks who don't like to be mentally challenged by a film. You've seen the statement come-and-go in the article that afficionados often turn down the sound during the opeining narration. (I don't, but I already know all the secrets that the film holds.) But even with the narration, the fact that the dark city is an island in space is not revealed and remains a surprise for the moment when Bumstead and Murdoch break through the wall at "Shell Beach".
Atlant 16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, now that I think about it the movie would have been better if it let the audience think for themselves...the movie would have been full of twists actually.156.34.221.193 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
(Addition) I don't think it would count as a twist ending, that discovery of an island in space happened looong before the events near the end of the film (injection, fighting, rebirth), unless I'm mistaken.156.34.221.193 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing it unless someone can prove that the movie ends around the time the island is revealed. 156.34.217.181 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just how close to the end does it have to occur to satisfy this requirement? 5, 10, 15 minutes? In The Village (film), the movie goes on for about, what, 20 or 30 minutes after the twist is revealed? You are trying to quantify what has so far been a qualitative measure. Do you want there to be separate categories for "Twist Endings", "Twist Middles", "Twists that occur 25-30 Minutes From The Ending"? There does not exist a definitive quantitative measure for when a Plot twist qualifies as a Twist ending. Instead, a twist ending is defined generally has occurring at the end of the film or in proximity to the climax. I'd say the primary climax of the film is definitely the battle between the lead stranger and the hero, but the confrontation at Shell Beach definitely qualifies as a climax. It can be viewed as the beginning of the climactic sequence, or as a climax the builds up to the big one. Considering it is the scene immediately before the climax, I think it falls in this realm. Personally, I'd say it qualifies as a "Twist Ending". But, I'll tell you what. We can all pretty much agree that the whole category that is "Twist Endings" is really a sub-category of that which can be called "Plot Twists". I also see the article for Twist endings is overflowing, but the article for Plot twists is rather anemic. What say we move the bulk of the info from twist endings to plot twists, and replace List of films with a twist ending with List of films with a plot twist? That should make everyone happy, and doesn't get us mired in unmeasurable qualifications. --Reverend Loki 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You do raise some good points. I was only trying to help improve the article, to me it didn't seem like there was a sudden, unexpected conclusion. Please calm down (you look upset in your typing). - 156.34.217.161, 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah, that was more along the lines of philosophical rambling as opposed to exasperated ranting inducing those rhetorical questions (in retrospect, I can see how they can look the same with the verbal inflections removed...) I do appreciate your motives, though. However, I may yet act upon the whole twist ending->plot twist idea yet... --Reverend Loki 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gaping plot hole?

I love this movie, but I'm kind of confused. So, one time John woke up in the middle of being injected with memories. So what? The Strangers just fled the scene? Couldn't they just restrain anyone who does this and inject them again? Unless they struggle and escape, but then they would remember struggling and escaping. John just wakes up in a bathtub with no memories at all. How does that make sense? I assumed the reason he was a known serial killer was because someone when the police found him the Strangers would know exactly where he was, but no, he's just a known serial killer because his new memories were going to make him into one. So this means the Strangers took no measures to catch him other than 'guys let's chase him down'. --70.81.114.188 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Although never explicitly stated, I believe it is heavily implied that no Strangers were present at this time. Once the scenario is setup, there is nothing more for the Strangers to do, so hey leave. The doctor then follows along making the injections. So, when he came to, the only one present was Kiefer Sutherland's character, and he wasn't real eager for the Strangers to have that it of info. --Reverend Loki 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ohh, right. That makes sense. --70.81.114.188 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Narration

Someone should add a section in the article explaining the controversy over the opening narration. Kwyjibear 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it gone? We used to have such a section, IIRC. Atlant 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It was removed for being weaselly and poorly written. The tendency for Wikipedians to see "controversy" anywhere that something annoys them continues to impress me. Chris Cunningham 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
While I completely agree that too many things on Wikipedia are labeled "controversies" based on the feelings on small groups of fans, generally, if a majority dislikes something, it might be worth noting. If some evidence can be found for it, anyway. As for this specific case, there's currently a commented-out note in the "Plot" section that doesn't use the word "controversy", though it isn't written too well. According to this DVD review, quoting Alex Proyas himself (presumably from the commentary track), the intro was "studio-imposed" and "unnecessary". Since the director's intent was obviously not to have it there, I think that makes it notable enough to be worth putting in the article in some form. I'm going to try adding a revised note in place of the old one. See what you think. Maybe it belongs somewhere other than the "Plot" section, but I think it's ok there for now. --Fru1tbat 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frederik Pohl?

Under the section of similarities to other works, there is no mention of Frederik Pohl's story "The Tunnel Under the World". The screen writers blatantly used his work as the basis of the film, replacing the insightful commentary on commercialism with telekinetic zombie aliens. Ironic.

Anonymous, there is absolutely NO proof that the writers were aware of Pohl's story, which renders your criticism invalid. The fact that you didn't sign your comment makes it suspect to begin with. I for one certainly was reminded of Pohl's story when watching the film, and it could legitimately be included in the "Similarities to other works" section. Lee M (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a registered user: I don't make many wikipedia entries - sorry. I don't know what I would be 'suspect' of or why the sentence I wrote was removed. True, the writer's may have been unaware of Pohl's short story. I doubt it. Its considered one of the top science-fiction stories of the 20th century. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Orson Scott Card's, writer of Ender's Game, who included it in his book Masterpieces: The Best Science Fiction of the Twentieth Century. This isn't some obscure bit of fiction and it's not the first time the someone has borrowed from it. The novel Simulacron-3 did likewise. If anyone dosn't believe me, Google Book search has Card's book online here: link. Read Pohl's story for yourself and decide. I'm putting back what I wrote in Similarities to Other Works, as it is similar - more similar than any other work put there. - Mori.
After looking over the other comments here, it's obvious I made an error in not citing a source to collabortate the change. I've added one to remedy that. - Mori. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.171.141 (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

  • Warner Bros., the film's copyright holder (New Line Cinema, a division of Time Warner, distributed it), objected to the title Dark City early in the film's production. They felt the title would confuse audiences with Mad City, Warner's soon-to-be-released film starring John Travolta and Dustin Hoffman, which they predicted would be a commercial hit. The filmmakers changed the title to Dark World, but Steven Spielberg's production company threatened legal action, feeling the title was too similar to their film The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The title was then changed to Dark Empire, but legal action was again threatened, this time by Lucasfilm, who felt the title was too similar to their own well-known film The Empire Strikes Back, and was an exact match for the Star Wars: Dark Empire comic series that had been published by Dark Horse Comics in 1991-92. However, by the time the film was completed and ready for release, Warner's Mad City had come and gone from theatres, and was not the hit they hoped it would be, and the filmmakers were allowed to use their original title,[1] on the condition that Warner could use the original set of Dark City for The Matrix.[2]

Exported from article for later re-integration. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Warner Bros., the film's copyright holder (New Line Cinema, a division of Time Warner, distributed it), objected to the title Dark City early in the film's production. They felt the title would confuse audiences with Mad City, Warner's soon-to-be-released film, which they predicted would be a commercial hit. The filmmakers changed the title to Dark World, and then Dark Empire, but met with legal threats from the producers of The Lost World: Jurassic Park, The Empire Strikes Back and the Star Wars: Dark Empire comic series. However, by the time the film was completed Warner's Mad City had come and gone from theaters, and was not the hit they hoped it would be, and the filmmakers were allowed to use their original title,[3] on the condition that Warner could use the original set of Dark City for The Matrix.[4]
how about this slightly shorter version? DiggyG (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've never read anything that tied the movie's name to the usage of its sets for The Matrix. The cited IMDb trivia doesn't mention it. It may be true, but unless there's a good source for the information, it should probably stay out of the article. - Eureka Lott 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure imdb is not generally considered reliable enough to serve as a reference in any case. This seems like the kind of thing that would probably be mentioned on a dvd commentary track if it were true. DiggyG (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

There are too many images in the article, especially with insufficient fair use rationale. Each image needs to have a unique fair use rationale, not a generic list. See this from Spider-Man 3 as an example. The image of the morphing buildings can strengthened specifically to support the paragraph about the influence of The Crow, but I'm not sure about the rest. The image of Dr. Schreiber only seems to serve as identification, and WP:FU requires that the rationale be more than that. For example, the appearance of the character, with the scar and the glasses, would be appropriate critical commentary to warrant the image's inclusion. However, there is no direct basis for the image of Mr. Hand threatening Emma and the group of the Strangers. I imagine that there could be more description uncovered about the appearance of the Strangers, but the image of Mr. Hand does not have any critical commentary pointed at it. Lastly, the soundtrack cover does not meet fair use rationale because cover art must receive critical commentary. It does not qualify as critical commentary about the music itself. For example, appropriate cover art to have critical commentary on would be the Rolling Stone magazine with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. I would suggest the removal of all images except the morphing buildings, and when the article is improved in terms of content, we can locate images that suit the content better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose their appropriateness depends on how narrowly you define fair use. The capture of Mr. Hand and Emma illustrates a plot point, and the one of the Strangers does a decent job of displaying an aspect of the film's visual design. The image of Dr. Schreber is more difficult to justify, and perhaps should be removed. However, I don't know if the album cover image needs to be held to the same standards. If the soundtrack had its own article (as many soundtracks do), it would traditionally include the cover art, regardless of whether the imagery was addressed in the article. If the soundtrack gains its own article, I would support the image's removal from this article. Please also the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Restarting non-poll discussion. - EurekaLott 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering that fair use has been more stringent lately, it seems appropriate to provide strong justification for any image. When I start improving an article, I tend to be fairly critical of its content, as if it were about to undergo the FAC process anytime. I'm sure that the images here would sit just fine in the currently B-grade article, but when the time comes, the rationale for non-free images should be sharpened. The issue with using images in the Plot section is that pretty much any image from the film could be used to support any part of the story. Why this image, for example, over one of the main character doing something? What seems best to do is if possible, to find an image from a scene that has been commented upon. The image in the Plot section at Dirty Dancing, in my opinion, is a nice example of this. I'm sure that an image of the Strangers could be justified if we found independent, critical commentary about why they were designed the way they were, and the same would go for Dr. Schreber. As for soundtrack images, you're right, when they have their own articles, the soundtrack image is used for identification. I looked at the discussion you provided, and I'll let that play out; I'm not exceedingly picky about the result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Citation needed"?

Why is a citation needed for something so obvious? I just watched this film and Jeunet's City of lost Children as well as Borges' Lottery in Babylon came straight to my mind. At least for those 'citation needed' marks, i guess they can be removed (I will do so, if nobody objects). 217.85.91.130 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit original research, which is basically providing one's own analysis of the film. The connection needs to be perceived by a reliable source, not an editor, otherwise we would be able to comment on any aspect of a film, whether it is "obvious" or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course. But as in 'Lottery in Babylon' peoples identities are permuted as well as they are in 'Dark City' (as well as in a story by Stanislaw Lem, btw.), a reliable source is not necessary, i think, because this is a fact (anybody can check this by reading those books). No claim is risen, that this has been done intentionally, which would clearly require a reliable source cited. You would not demand a citation for the plot synopsis in the beginning. 217.85.91.189 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC) (same as 217.85.91.130 above)
It's still original research in the sense that a connection is drawn between two subjects where none was previously established by an independent source. Permitting original connections like these has no objective standards -- films could be connected with the merest of examples, such as similar protagonists, similar atmospheres, similar outcomes. Content such as similarities between this film and other films, whether intended or unintended, should be verified by reliable sources, not from the perspectives of editors like you and me. Perhaps an attempt can be undertaken to find a reliable source using the titles of both films in a search engine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Big O

The anime Big O has some striking similarities to this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.7.1 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dirrector Cut...Cut it?

This section seems very much like a blatant promotion for the Directors Cut DVD. In Addition, the formatting of the section takes up too much page length. Does it even deserve it's own section? Winston Spencer (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a "Home media" section mentioning the film's VHS and DVD release (with a summary of whatever special features the latter has). I would also implement a few sentences about the director's cut, but they need to be sourced (as with everything else not directly from the film). Here's coverage from Sci Fi Wire. It may also be worth looking at the style guidelines' home media section for some ideas. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Style correction

In the first section, there was a reference to a "blood soaked knife". First of all, a compound modifier should be hyphenated: "blood-soaked knife". However, this is moot, because the idea is garbage. A knife is not porous enough to soak up blood, like a napkin. Therefore, I changed it to "bloody knife".

Only porous substances (napkins, biscuits, sponges) can soak up liquids. Think before you write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.206.59 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful Dreamer

I think the "similarities" section should mention the anime movie called Beautiful Dreamer, a spin-off of the Urusei Yatsura series, since it has a very similar plot. --216.9.188.140 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"...revealing the city as an enormous space habitat surrounded by a force field."

I wonder if the "force field" is relevant. Yes, the city is a space habitat, but IMHO the force field is just an assumption, not a fact. Comments, anyone? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was necessary as it keeps radiation out.Scorpidragon (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dark City (1998 film)

The Lem Dobbs quoted in the film is *not* Lem Kitaj! It was me (Geri Townsley {formally Donachie} that did the co-writing on the film with Alex Proyas in 1998. It was Alex that came up with the name LEM Dobbs too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpidragon (talk • contribs) 18:51, October 18, 2008

  1. ^ Goyer, David S. Audio commentary, Dark City DVD (1998).
  2. ^ IMDb - Trivia for The Matrix
  3. ^ Goyer, David S. Audio commentary, Dark City DVD (1998).
  4. ^ IMDb - Trivia for The Matrix
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dark_City_(1998_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1163440141"