Talk:Déjà Vu (2006 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Deja vu ver2.jpg

Image:Deja vu ver2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot description is incomplete

The girl was found dead in a pink dress, but she was being held captive by the terrorist wearing jeans and a shirt. This proves that Denzel went back to the past once left her in the house and then went to the dock. The terrorist meanwhile drove to her home and killed and her. That's why she is found dead in the pink dress with the fingers cut off. And that's why Denzel found "u can save her" written on the wall even though she was already dead at the beginning of the movie.

Denzel then goes back to the past again but this time takes her with him in the pink dress again, but this time she is not killed by him.

The above IMO would greatly increase the plot's understanding by the public, which come over here trying to understand this complex plot but finds only a few lines of information. I know the the abose need to be worked on in order to have its quality increased, but still it would do a great favor to the reader. What do you think?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It#s not only incomplete, the story-telling is wrong. POV: You should write the visible stuff in time, not the end being interpretated and then starting from a climax point again.To me Doug died in the past by rescuing the ship being drunk in the river. Then in the present he appears again and the former dead beauty lives too.

and _no government closes a programm like "snow white", the film tells the end of a work day and a case at this moment! The specific difficulty in telling "deja vue" means, you must be able to understand relativity and simplify that theory on borders and synapsis. The buddhi of three times will help you, if you change the false telling!--88.77.211.30 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

French poster removed

I have removed Image:Deja vu ver2.jpg, the French poster, because generally only 1 Fair use image is allowed per article, especially if they are images that are of the same thing, in this case, posters of the same film. Apparently, this French poster has been added because it contains a definition of the phrase déjà vu in French. However, per Fair use rules, the definition can easily be replicated in text form, and in English, provided it has a reliable source. Also, the Fair use rationale is a generic one, and does not in anyway state why two Fair use posters should be in the same article, nor why this particular one is relevant because of the French definition, and why that info cannot be conveyed by other means. As such, I have placed an IFD tag on the image page.

Btw, the French Wiki article, fr:Déjà Vu, does not have a poster, and so this poster could be transfered there, assuming the French WP allows Fair-use images. If it does not, then perhaps that explains the persistance of IP users re-adding the image here. However, that's not sufficient legal reason to keep two FU images. - BillCJ (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot extended

I extended the description of the plot. This is not original research or my opinion, but rather the true plot of movie. I hope I explained it well enough but if you read it closely, you can tell that this really is the only possible plot for the movie, as evidenced from scenes in the movie. She cannot be found dead in her red dress unless Doug had already tried to rescue her once and failed. If someone doesn't realize how this is a necessary plot detail, then this someone doesn't understand the movie. Please don't delete this new section. Just because something isn't expressly stated in the movie does not mean that it isn't an integral part of the plot.

I have actually gotten approval from Bill Marsilii, the film writer, that my interpretation of the film is correct. He quoted me on blog and I will look for the quote if evidence is needed for these plot details, although I think evidence from the movie is evidence enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonrio (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Key word: "my interpretation". That places what you have written squarely within the bounds of WP's Original Research policy as a synthesis of existing material. Please read the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V policy pages carefully before responding. You will note that blogs are not allowed as sources. If you can find a publised source (internet or print) such as an interview with the author, then that can be used here. At this point, the consesus is to exclude your material at this point. It would be good if you'd remove the material on your own as a gesture of good faith, as I have no desire. Also, please be aware of WP's Three-revert policy, which cand result in temporary or permanent blocks for continual reversions. Thanks for your cooperations on this matter, and I trust we will not need intervention to abide by policies. - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the words "my interpretation", since those words sound like I made up what I wrote from my own opinions. What I meant to say is the way I have written it is correct. I was very careful in how I wrote it to make it clear that this is not my opinion: all aspects of the movie indicate that this is the true plot. If you read through the history of the discussion of this article, many people have already mentioned that the plot description is incomplete and missing important details (see the sections above "Inconsistencies," "Overall plot problems," and "Plot description is incomplete.") Would you be ok with leaving what I have written to allow others to find citations from the directors and writers to prove that this is how it the movie really happened?

At any rate, I certainly believe that there's enough evidence in the movie to prove it without citations. If you want, I could cite actual quotes in the movie. I'm not trying to flood wikipedia with my opinions, I'm only here to make it more accurate and reliable. Many people don't understand this movie and say it has "plot holes" merely because they haven't had the opportunity to read a good description of the somewhat hidden plot that many don't see because they movie doesn't spoon feed them the entire plot like most other hollywood films do. This movie makes it very clear that he traveled back at least twice, although they don't expressly state it. The fact that she is dead in the red dress, as I described, is very clear evidence that he tried once, and failed, and that what we see is his second attempt. If it weren't so, the movie would absolutely make no sense, which is what the already weak plot description here on wikipedia leads the reader to believe. As far as the timeline, the story is the same. All outlined events must have happened in the order I outlined for the movie to make sense. Leaving out any of those details will create a plot hole.

Also, please don't believe that I am hard headed, I am perfectly willing to edit anything I wrote if you can describe to me why it's incorrect. Wildonrio (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• The german street-pschychyetrist will tell you: "It#s a story about paranoia!" so he has got frames and filters without any awareness. Because it#s a real thriller, which deals with systems of logistic in a city like New Orleans and science in a possible space. Virtuality and reality in fiction is connected simultaniously. So the past is now visible and just for one time. To change at time borders means something weird? or is it a fictional possibility? Tensefull and on a high level of real intelligence being told.--88.77.211.30 (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Added reference to a quote by screenwriter Bill Marsilii

Reference number 2 is to a quote by Bill Marsilii, who wrote the script to Deja Vu along with Terry Rossio. He thanks me for laying out the intricacies of the timeline(s) within the plot for Deja Vu. If you look at my post which he is referencing, you will see how I wrote out exactly what is outlined in the timelines I have posted here in the Deja Vu article at wikipedia. Since i have included a direct quote from the writer, may I please remove the

and

from the article? Wildonrio (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Added reference to a quote by screenwriter Terry Rossio

Reference number 3 is to a quote by Terry Rossio, who wrote the script to Deja Vu along with Bill Marsilii. I went to his website (wordplayer.com) and asked if he could come read what I have written here at wikipedia and say whether he approves or not. He says "Your interpretation (and chart) are spot on, and you make a compelling case." I added a reference to it, but for some reason wordplayer.com (Terry's website where he said this) doesn't let you link directly to the post. If (using Mozilla) you right click and say "copy the link location" and paste in the URL manually then it will go there. I also removed the Original Research and Synthesis sections from the "More plot details which must be assumed" section, since I added references by both the writers of the movie to show they approve. Wildonrio (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Wildonrio (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Added plot details as seen in the film

I added a plot summary (as seen in the film), as I found the "extra-plot details" to be too confusing with the multiple timelines. This would probably also make more sense to someone watching the movie for the first time. I deliberately kept the plot elements vague so as not to make the plot section unnecessarily long.

Wxkat (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Probable Fifth Timeline

I've read through your Four Timeline theory and they match what I wrote in IMdb for the second through fifth trips back in time. His first trip back, I think that he died. When we see him on the gurney in the hospital, he has the words "Revive Me" written on his chest. BUT, when we see him step into the time machine he was never prepped by writing "Revive Me" on his chest. What we see in the movie is everything up to when he steps into the time machine for the first time, and then everything after he arrives in the fifth timeline. Please check with the writers about his first death and the significance of "Revive Me".

Firstlensman (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they didn't write that on his chest and we just didn't see it? That's quite an assumption you are making there, one with no support from the writers either. Wildonrio (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there even confirmation from the writers that there are 4 timeslines as given in the wiki article? From what I understand, there might be just 2 timelines. And in both timeline denzel washington went back to try to save the girl. In the 1st he failed, in the 2nd he succeeded. Everything else is just pre-destined. Larry dying, laser pointing, etc all happened in both the timelines. 58.26.136.5 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why I Deleted A Massive Chunk of this Article

Hey guys... I know that all the speculative data that has been posted is extremely interesting and potentially useful, and believe me, I figured it was (I am a big sci-fi fan, and this is one of my favorite movies). However, there are two liddle' guidelines that Wikipedia has set in place. These guidelines pertain to the fact that no original research can be posted and that all things that are put up on this site have to be verified by multiple trustable sources (not forums). I am sorry to reduce your hard work to nothing, people, but unless a Rotten Tomatoes editor (or so forth) explicitly talks about something like this, you cannot put this up. Even so, someone more (reliably, of course) than just a single guy needs to approve this take. If you must, put all this incredibly lain out information (I'm not kidding, I love how you set it out), and put it on a seperate website so others can read it. Remember. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Before you decide to put up a fight with me over the subject, understand that Wikipedia has rules that need to be followed.

Thank you for listening.

Why can't Wikipedia have a section for discussion? Maybe a sister site? I think this is something that is GREATLY needed. Please Wikipedia, give us a forum for discussion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Starstriker,

You say that I need approval from someone like a Rotten Tomatoes editor. How about the actual writers of the movie, Terry Rossio and Bill Marsilii? That is as reliable of a source as you can get. The two writers of the movie read the wikipedia article themselves, approved it, and then posted at their website that the wikipedia article about Deja Vu is correct. I even gave references to them quoting the correctness of the article, they were references 2 and 3 in the previous wikipedia article before you deleted it. In the official script of the movie that was published by the film's writer Terry Rossio at his website wordplayer.com, he actually makes reference to the (previous) Deja Vu wikipedia article in the introduction to the script. Look here http://www.wordplayer.com/archives/DEJAVU.intro.html. I think you were very hasty in your decision to delete everthing we had written here. It was all verified by the writers.

That being said, I also appreciate what you have done to the article yourself. It looks very professional, albeit not nearly as interesting. Can you please bring back what you deleted and merge it with what you have written? Since the writer published his script referencing the wikipedia article he had read, you are making him look like a fool now since the article is completely different. Thank you.

Wildonrio (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wildonrio, I understand that it is far more interesting, and it indeed is true as verified by the very writers of this film; Marsilii's declaration means that this is not original research. I thank you for being civil with me, but there are a few more rules that it comes in conflict with...according to the verifiability guideline and the fringe theory guidelines here on Wikipedia, someone from an outside source needs to verify the information as well. That is why I mentioned the Rotten Tomatoes editor in question. I know it is a pressing task, but the only way for the four timeline theory to be inserted validly into the article is if you can find other sources that agree with this. At the least, you could propose it to a scientific magazine and we could work our way from there. I'll help you out in that sector as much as I can, but it still remains necessary.--Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 12:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Starstriker,

I appreciate you trying to maintain the high quality of Wikipedia by making sure false doctrine and outrageous theories and claims are kept out of Wikipedia. I completely agree with this. In your links you provided, there is a certain point that is made that I would like you to take a second look at, and that is the common sense rule and the times when you are supposed to ignore a rule. According to the common sense rule, it says "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. [...] The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter." Now what makes more "common sense" to you?

1. Completely delete an entire article making claims about a movie that, although unpopular, have been verified by both writers of the movie to be "spot on"? (That is a quote by the way by the Deja Vu filmwriter Terrio Rossio describing the previous article, check the previous references.) And then require that the only way to get the previous article back is if a third party who had nothing to do with the writing of the film agrees with the claims the film writers have already verified? Or...
2. Admit that if the writers of the movie verify the article to be true and correct, then that is a reliable enough source (two sources actually) to leave the article the way it is and accept it as verifiable and true.

I think you "lost perspective" in your hasty editing, just as Wikipedia guidelines warn against. Please use common sense. If you do, you can tell that the article should have been left the way it was. We don't need more sources beyond the writers of the film. It is their movie. They have the final word on what is correct and what isn't. If they say it's correct, then since the movie is their own creation, then it definitely IS correct and nothing more should have to be proven. Wildonrio (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wildonrio, in my own right, I have already agreed with you. Your theory deserves to be in the article, but other people are going to come and tussle with you on this one. That is the very purpose of references, to assuage the worries produced by other skeptical editors. My wish is to see Deja Vu reach good article status, which means that it is only a step short of being on the main page. I feel that any challenges from good article reviewers will be largely centered around this subject (which cannot be salvaged if targeted). That is what my common sense tells me.

However, you have more than already made your case. I know you have contributed in good faith, and I clearly ignored that rule. I see that to be the fatal flaw to my argument. I will reinstate the deleted sections, although this may dissolve any real dream of bringing this up to good article (and later featured article) status. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, Wildonrio; it looks like the article was promoted on the quality scale. However, the assessor noted a few things that we could do to help fit the theory into the article. Would you like to collaborate here? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS B-class assessment

A request has been made to deterime if this article meets the B-class criteria. I think it is very close, and just needs a few changes:

• The biggest issue is the length of the lead. Expand it to 2-3 paragraphs, covering all parts of the article. Look to current film GA/FAs for examples. See WP:LEAD for further guidelines.
• For Image:Denzel Washington Deja Vu.jpg, the fair use rationale header needs to state "Fair use rationale for Déjà Vu (film)". Otherwise, it may be deleted when a bot tags it down the line for not specifically stating which article the image is being used for. Also, the source and copyright need to be added. Again, look to some of the curent GA/FAs for examples. Same goes for Image:Jerry Bruckheimer filming Deja Vu.jpg.
• I tagged Image:DejaVuBigPoster.jpg to be reduced in size (ironic, considering the name) since our project requires non-free images to have one of its sides not be larger than 300px. You can either reduce it yourself or it will be reduced soon be another editor.
• The article probably doesn't need Image:Deja Vu movie French.jpg, unless it is a major part of the production/marketing of the film. There is a lot of recent discussions for limiting non-free images, so in order to keep the screenshot and the production images, make sure there is a strong rationale for their inclusion. Sorry to say this again, but do check the recent GA/FAs for further clarification.

Good work so far, the article is very close to B-class. I went through and made a lot of edits, but left the above for you to do so you can familiarize yourself with the guidelines concerning these areas. Please review my edits to check for errors as well. Once the above have been fixed you can either contact me and I'll reassess it or you can reassess it yourself. Before advancing to GA, I'd recommend expanding on the current sections with more information/sources, and consider branching out to the soundtrack, home video release, marketing, etc. I enjoyed this film, and it will be great to see it advance to GA if that is the intention of the editors of the article. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work on addressing the points that I brought up, the images look fine (I also found the source for the movie poster). Concerning the recent readdition of the possible timelines, I first went through and fixed the formatting and several grammar errors within the section. Looking over the discussion and the relevant sources for the section, I could see how both sides could interpret the inclusion/removal from the article. For my viewpoint there are several options. For GA, sources need to be reliable, and the ones provided may be problematic. I think I saw in one of the sources that the writer mentioned his view on the timelines within the commentary. If that's true, it could be used for sourcing the section. For the current state of the section, if it is to remain being included, then it needs to be trimmed down (it is currently longer/same length as the plot itself). There is a lot of redundancy in the last three sections, and there should be a simpler way to correct this. I'd recommend not even describing the four timelines in full detail, as a brief summary along with mention of the writer's take on the different timelines should be sufficient (especially since the image already replicates the information in the section).

Besides all of this, the article meets the B-class criteria and I have assessed it as such. For advancing to GA, I would recommend reworking the section to condense it down (consider seeking other editors' suggestions and/or bring the discussion to the talk page of WP:FILMS for a more comprehensive look at the matter). In it's current state, it probably would not qualify for GA status, so something has to be done. I'd also recommend getting a peer review on how to improve the article further, and take a look at WP:MOSFILM for further guidelines in improving the article. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Starstriker's Notes

• Concerning the lead, I modeled it after Little Miss Sunshine; I can see from what Déjà Vu was missing that it does not have enough information in the "Production" section to cover all of the points that Little Miss Sunshine covered. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I fixed the headers for the Jerry Bruckheimer and Denzel Washington pictures; when I have time, I'll dig back around to find where I found the pictures, which I will try to remember. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 04:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I removed Image:Deja Vu movie French.jpg from the article. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for use

Here are some articles that can be incorporated into the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Deja Vu: Time Tripping to New VFX Heights by VFX World, covers the visual effects of the film.
• Rousing the Crowd With a Bigger Bang by New York Times, covers how the blast of the ferry was filmed and also relevance to Oklahoma City bombing.
• Tony Scott—Deja Vu: the first film shot in New Orleans post-Katrina by FindArticles, about Scott's filmmaking

Hey, Nehrams;

Thanks for the heads-up, and for searching for the material in general. A few things came up in real life, and I had to deal with them. Now, however, I'm back on track and should be for the rest of the weekend.

I have already incorporated the first link into the article, and am currently working on the second; all three should be in there really soon. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Aleterantive timelines

The alternative timelines section has been re-added to this article after a GA review by several edtiors stated it needed removal in order to pass GA status. Since this section has not changed since the GA review please remove it or the article will face WP:GAR and maybe delisted.Million_Moments (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no responce to my request, I have removed this section myself as is advised at tge WP:GAR page. If it is re-added then it will go to WP:GAR and may be delisted. Million_Moments (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really sorry I didn't get to this earlier... --Starstriker7^(Talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok it was Christmas and new years! Million_Moments (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this! —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title

I moved the page to "2006 film", as this isn't the only film with this title. I also removed the accents, as my thoughts are that the average reader isn't going to know how to put the accents on the letters when they are searching for the title. Now, naming conventions may permit this, so someone might want to check behind me on this. Regardless of that, it isn't the only "film" with that exact title, so it should be given a year identifier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)