Talk:The Butterfly Effect

Character Introductions

The only character that is introduced before the plot section is Even Treborn. However, in the plot section references are made to Kayleigh and Andrea without first letting readers know who they are. The plot section is also kind of sloppy. I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so would anyone be able to clean this up a bit? Tpoore1 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Source of Title

Concerning the source of the title, there is a second possibility -- L. Sprague de Camp wrote a story called "Gun For Dinosaur," in which a hunter who goes back in time to hunt a dinosaur changes the future by accidently stepping on a butterfly. The changes magnify over time, similar to what the characters in this movie experience.

I'll not change the page, since I don't know how relevant this connection might be, but bring it up for discussion.

Are you sure it wasn't "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury? - angrysquirrel 21:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury is a story about a hunter who goes back in time to hunt dinosaurs, steps on a butterfly, and thus changes the future, so I'm pretty sure that if there is a source of the title, it was that. What was "Gun For Dinosaur" about? Twilight 15:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The film's title clearly refers primarily to Lorentz's term "The Butterfly Effect" -- rather than to Bradbury, the original source. The sentence structure here (naming Bradbury before Lorentz) implies that the movie studio read Bradbury and then coined the term "The Butterfly Effect" independently of Lorentz.

I agree. The film even opens with a written description of the butterfly effect in the Lorentz sense. I was a little startled to see it attributed to Bradbury here, though it's true that Bradbury's story has a similar theme. And a butterfly. Clampton 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Ending?

It is strange, but when I saw the film the ending was different: when in the clinic (fifth timeline) Evan asked his mother to bring an old film showing his being born. She did so, but he wasn't allowed by his doctor to watch it and thus he broke in an office of his doctor and travelled to the past, commiting suicide in the womb by strangling himself with the umbilical cord. He did so as through the movie he saw that he was the fault in the whole story, since, except for the fact that he was the reason Keyleigh stayed with her father instead living with her mother, in some point he and his mother went to a fortuneteller a night they were out, but the fortuneteller became confused by the fact that Evan had no line of life in his hand and that he wasn't supposed to be alive. His mother later told him that his birth was a miracle and that two previous times she had unsuccessfully tried to have a baby with Evan's father. As Evan put all this together, he decided to act as he did: indeed he was not supposed to exist. The present was then corrected: Evan's mother got married again and had a baby with her new husband, while Kayleigh married Lenny. I don't remember about Tommy but he was all right as well. Does anyone know about this alternative version of the film? It seems pretty different from the one described in the article --Bill the Greek 07:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have both versions in a special edition DVD. The changes to the director's cut were subtle, but it made a heck of a lot of difference to the storyline, as it turned the downbeat and depressing original story, in which the reasons for Evan's time springing are left a mystery, into an even more depressing and downbeat story and added (IMHO) a pointless storyline about mysticism which seemed oddly out of place. I'm not sure of the general reaction to the Director's Cut, but everyone I've spoken to preferred the original. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill the Greek, you saw the Director's Cut. The ending and a few other elements are quite different from the Theatrical cut that the entry describes. I'm surprised the DC isn't mentioned in the entry anywhere.

Having seen only the TC, I don't know anything about the DC. Maybe you will write something about it? --Elenthel

I'm way to lazy to read if anyone else said this already, but heres what i think: my friend told me about the DC where he kills himself in the womb. but i found out just a few months ago that they came out with a sequel, and though i never say it, i think they decided not to kill off the main character for sequel proposes. And i heard that the sequel wasn't any good so i dont plan on watching it. If someone has seen the 2nd one, pls tell me about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snakpak (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The sequel was written and directed by completely different people and shares none of the same actors (and, from what I've read, it was apparently pretty bad). I think it's safe to say there was never any plan for a sequel when they made the first one. - Dark T Zeratul 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the directors cut because it shows how Evan was willing to do anything for y=the people he loved, and properly shows the effects of the chaos theory.

Me and two of my friends spent the night trying to figure out this moives different endings. We ended up finding 4 different endings! Our brains were exploading to say the least. I tried to detail these in the section on the page. Feel free to make them better.- Kalimia (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At some point in the past this article has been changed by someone who has seen an alternative ending to the film:

"This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elenthel (Talk | contribs) at 22:11, 19 August 2005. It may differ significantly from the current revision.:

'The sixth timeline:

At last everything is fine. Nothing stops Tommy and Kayleigh from moving to their mother's place, and they are raised properly. Tommy (once again) becomes a priest. Lenny is Evan's roommate, as they study in the university. The paradox is that in order to save Kayleigh and the rest Evan had to refuse from being with her. Evan burns all his diaries and films, as he is content with the present. In the very end of film he occasionally meets Kayleigh in the street. She is looking good. Evan walks away, satisfied."

what whoever edited the article may not have realized is that completely different endings were incorporated when the movie was released in different forms DVD, VCD and theatrical, no one ending is therefore correct and all should be mentioned in the article. if anyone knows for certain why the film was released in this fashion,i think it would be an interesting addition to the article as well. - Tom, 23 June 2008

Inconsistencies in Film

Would I be terribly out of line if I were to create a separate section on this page for the temporal inconsistencies in the film? 24.250.20.158 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)loodog

Seems like a good idea to me. SonOfNothing 23:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What is it with the "I don't think it is a mistake"? It should be discussed in the discussion page, not in the article itself... Please decide. Raistlin8r 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick note on my last edit to "Temporal Inconsistencies," since I couldn't include it all in the history notes. I removed the following line: "In the third timeline Evan asks Kayleigh's dad if he remembers him. However in this timeline he would have never had talked to him in the first place." This is not inconsistent at all. Evan's first major change (prompting the second timeline) happened at age seven. The second major change (prompting the third timeline) happened at age thirteen. The third timeline, then, incorporates Evan's original life up to age seven, the second timeline from age seven to age thirteen, and any changes that resulted from Evan's new actions at age thirteen. Because his talk with Kayleigh's father would still be a part of the third timeline, it is not inconsistent to for Kayleigh's father to remember it. Tuckdogg 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, in the first inconcistency it is mentioned that the stigmata should have remained there when he went into prison, yet the cigarette scar from his first flashback also appeared suddenly. Doesn't this invalidate the inconsistency?James Delgado 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Under "Production Mistakes" it is written that "Evan tries to prove to his cellmate that Jesus speaks to him in his dreams by jumping back in time to his childhood and scarring his palms to create a "Stigmata" sign. But if he had already changed time, the scars would already exist and this plan would not work." First, how is this a production mistake? Second, what evidence is there that he had "already" changed time?

One of the inconsistencies currently listed is as follows: "The reason Evan looked into one of his diaries in the first place, was that girl he met when he went out with Thumper. In the second timeline, he couldn't have met her since he was Kayleigh's boyfriend, thus he wouldn't have a reason to look at his diaries at the time."

However, throughout the movie, Evan appears to be aware of his "real" timeline -- the timeline that involves him jumping back and forth between the present and the past. So even if during the second timeline there is nothing to motivate him to read his diary, he knows that the only way to change his present is to go back in time by reading his diary. This is not an inconsistency if one buys into the initial suspension of disbelief that includes, among others, Evan's knowledge of all the timelines he traverses in the movie. This "inconsistency" is not, and should be removed from the entry.

i recall a part in the movie where Evan talks to a doctor about how he has all the momeries of some 40 years or something. the way i understand it is that his hard drive is filling up from 3 lifetime's worth of memory cause he DOES remember everything that happens, or rather you see the movie from his perspective, and he pretty much remembers doing everything that the "viewer" sees

75.4.177.78 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Title

I think the title refers to a 'classic' or at least well known example of Chaos Theory: That a Butterfly flapping its wings in e.g. South America can determine if the weather is sunny or raining in e.g. London 6 months later. (I think Ray Bradburys book was referring to this, rather than being the origin.)

IIRC, the original example used a seagull, however after Lorenz attractor became popular it was changed to a butterfly, because the attractor's appearance resembled a butterfly under certain conditions. Vjasper 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In the sense described above the film's title is something of a misnomer. The essential element of the butterfly effect in general terms is that different scenarios which are initially unmeasurably different, though not indentical, produce radically different and easily distinguished outcomes. However in this film, all the changes made by the leading character are simple and direct reworkings of events which are easily identifiable. Although the changes made by the leading character produce some unintended consequences, the changes initially made to the timeline are rather too blatent and direct to qualify as butterfly effects IMO. Fizzackerly 13:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Director's Cut

I think the director's cut of the movie lends credence to the idea that Evan really is suffering from some sort of brain malfunction (as opposed to having the supernatural ability to mess with time). I haven't seen the TC, but I'm not sure what difference it would make if I did. (Ha ha! chaos theory...) My qualm with the article is that it is written with the assumption that he actually has this power. -- 24.225.247.157 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The point of the director's cut was that if he never had anything to do with anything, then things would have worked out better for everyone around him. That he was the one who made things worse (by accident). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And ofcource 3 times in the other timelines since she had 3 other spontanious abortations before the "miracle baby" line that we saw. I think that the DC version is a totally different movie and that the original was the best one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azylum (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Experiences in different timelines

"Following each change to the timeline, Evan assimilates the memories associated with it despite never having "experienced" the events detailed in his memories, yet is also ignorant of many facets of the new timeline, despite having "experienced" them in the new version of the timeline."

Isn't it possible that the mere shock of suddenly being in that different timeline when first experiencing it (where he appears in bed with Kayleigh) would be enough for him to forget some of the concrete memories. I noticed that he had no trouble finding the bathroom whatsoever, possible indicating that his subconciousness knows some of the routines his newest self has. However, this can – of course – be a simple mistake.

About his memory

Didn't he suffer damage to his brain each time he went through time, to the point that in some of his last attempts, he had a nosebleed, and the doctor's brain scan indicated his brain was severely damage? Also, some of his personality accumulated in his altered life does show through. I noticed that in the second timeline, his killing Tommy shows a personality more consistent with his reckless one, than his original personality.

• He actually had a nosebleed on most of them, but the last one was the most obvious. Mushrom 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The doctor said in one of the timelines that he had brain hemoraging in the memory quadrant. Evan goes on to explain that it appears that he has shoved 14 years of memories in his head in a 1 year period.

I thought about this when I first saw the movie. Every timeline altering made his brain hemorrhage more prominent (he rewired the neurons in his brain to make up for the timeline and memory changes, I believe), to the extent that the doctor said he'd die soon. I expected a sad ending, then, because I didn't believe Evan could survive. However, he apparently fixes his brain with his last time travel. Presumably we are supposed to be led to believe that it's because he never meets Kayleigh again in this last timeline, and never travels through time, and never gains the brain hemorrhage, and lives happily ever after. But I thought the whole point was that the brain was damaged because it didn't rely on any of the timelines, and because the timelines were altered dramatically, not in spite of? After all, he rewrites the timelines to the extent that he erases his earlier time travels, but the brain hemorrhage gets worse every time. I find the ending to be inconsistent with this. --Spug 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

It is amazing how you can see a movie many times, yet still find something new every time you see it. I watched it tonight for the first time in months, and noticed one of the pennants on the wall in the second timeline says "Bradbury". This is an obvious reference to Ray Bradbury. I am going to watch it again even more closely at a later date, and see what else I can discover. Mushrom 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rating

What would you rate this article, I'd say B-class or higher. -- Cbrown1023 00:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rayleigh similar to Kayleigh?

The name Kayleigh somewhat similar to "Rayleigh number" that appears in here Lorenz_attractor. What do you think is it a coinsidence? The parameter used to change evolution of system?

Trivia

I noticed something reading through this... the main character's name is Evan Treborn. This is likely referencing that he is the "third born", or third of his kind, referencing to the previous two stillbirths his mother had.

well idk about that but i DO know that his original name in the film was "Chris" which makes it "Chris Treborn," or "Christ Reborn." But i think the filmmakers thought it would be too obvious and there'd be some conflict or something so they changed it to evan

75.4.177.78 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Snak Pak

Evan Treborn = Event Reborn? 217.205.110.55 18:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

according to IMDB, the name was changed from Chris Treborn which is a refernece to Christ Reborn, to Evan Treborn, which is a play on Event Reborn, as said above. I think it was just a case of Event Reborn being more fitting to the plot, rather than any conflict surrounding using a pun of Christ Reborn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemonkey15 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Alleged temporal inconsistencies section

This entire section apeears to be comprised of arguments, concepts, statements, or theories that are unpublished, original research. Either reputable sournces need to be citated here, or this section will need to be rev'ed. ---Jackel 17:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As indicated, I've removed this section. For posterity's sake, here it is.

• By producing stigmata when traveling back to his grade school years and impaling his hands in order to convince his cellmate, Carlos, that "Jesus is in my dreams", Evan has created an entirely new timeline. In this timeline, he would have arrived in prison with the scars and Evan would have been unable to demonstrate to Carlos that the scars were not there beforehand. Carlos could therefore not logically have been surprised by the scars' appearance. This would suggest that Evan's ability to travel back in time and still maintain physical attributes of prior timelines (for example, the fact that his memories build up rather than being recreated) allow him to affect other people, like Carlos and his memories.
• Some of Evan's trips do not alter the timeline but instead seem to have already been incorporated into his original life in a predestination paradox. For example, in his second blackout, his traveling back and looking for a weapon, which is caught out of context by his mother when she sees him suddenly holding a knife in the kitchen, does not alter the timeline because his original timeline already has this change in it. Another example can be seen in his fourth blackout when he visits his dad in the psychiatric institution. His dad warns him that his traveling back is recklessly dangerous because of the changes it could incur; however, this change was also already in Evan's original timeline. However, a possible argument for why this is not a paradox is that these events might have happened without Evan travelling back in time. Specifically, Evan might have originally gone for the knife for a reason other than to destroy the blockbuster, but we do not know the specific reason because he blacked it out. Similarly, there is no indication that Evan's father originally tried to choke him because of what he told him later in the movie; he might have recognized Evan's powers without listening to Evan's claims that he would make everything right again.

I don't know about all that, but the fact that he blacked it out in the 1st place, in a way, makes the paradox perfectly viable for him to have continued on, then go back and make it happen anyway. If he remembered taking the knife, then it would be different, and what about the part where He drew the Picture that he didn't remember drawing because of the blackout. He remembered that he was supposed to draw it, so he went back and ended up drawing it anyways.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.177.78 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

• After Evan watches the home video and changes his timeline, he never would have begun to write his journals in the first place. Indeed, the blackouts that happened throughout the movie only happened somewhere with or involving Kayleigh and Tommy, and they were no longer part of his life in the final timeline. This calls into question what were the journals he burned at the end. However, it might be that he still experienced the blackouts even without his relationships with Kayleigh and Tommy, since it was never conclusively determined that there is such a causal relationship. It might instead be that the blackouts are caused by any traumatic experience, which could have existed with or without Kayleigh and Tommy; for example, the blackout during Evan's visit with his father had nothing to do with Kayleigh and Tommy. The journals might have therefore contained very different entries, but we do not know what they are.
• In his first revisit to the dynamite incident the cigarette burn appears to have absolutely no effect on the timeline contrary to the butterfly effect theory. However, we do not know that nothing changed; we only know that the cigarette burn did not change anything directly related to the plot. The burn is a relatively minor incident, and therefore any changes to the timeline might be similarly minor.
• While not conclusive in its fault, it is difficult to believe, based on the butterfly effect theory, that Evan's action in his flashback to school when he impales his hands in the classroom would not have had sufficient effect on the timeline to allow him to arrive back in prison, still talking with Carlos. Further, it could be argued that all of Evan's changes to the timeline throughout the film would have caused much greater change to his surroundings, as opposed to being primarily constrained to those that he directly affected. Of course, the movie only focuses directly on Evan, and therefore we know little about the degree to which his surroundings changed. Even so, the theory does not predict any specific changes, and therefore arguing that changes should have been more or less significant is merely hypothetical.
• ^ the improbability of him still ending up in jail aside, none of the above arguments have accounted for the this:

-Kayleigh didn't perceive Evan's arms suddenly turning into prosthetics.

-Carlos does perceive Evan's hands suddenly bearing puncture scars.

It's an inconsistency. If Evan changes the timeline so that his hands were impaled as a child, he would have grown up that way from the point of view of the people in that timeline. A gx7 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A completely different Interpretation

Hello,

first of all, I want to say that I come from Germany and my English is not that good. Fell free to correct my mystakes :-)

While watching the film the second time I discovered a sentence in the 5th Timeline that gives me reason to belive, that the whole interpretation of "Timetraveling" is wrong. As the Blackouts (which are defined by "not remembering what happend") are the "changingpoints" in Evans life, it means that, whenever he wakes up in a new timeline, it is the first time that he knows within this timeline that he changed his life. An example: He wakes up in the second timeline in Kayleighs bed. This timeline is based on the first change that he made in his past. Because this changed was made in a blackout (and he can't remember what happend), the 13 to 20 year old Evan in this second timeline doesen't know that it is based on the change during the blackout. What I want to say is, that only the 20 year old Evan knows about the timetravelling.

In the fifth timeline, when he talks to the doctor and ask for his journals, the doctor responses: "It hurts me to go through this again. There are no journals. There never were. It is part of the phantasyworld your mind created to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh Miller. Think Evan, THINK. You've created a disease that does not exist. Alternate universes with Colleges, prisons and paraplegia" But the doctor can't know anything about these parallel universes, because even Evan didn't know anything about it until he wakes up in this timeline when he is 20. The conclusion would be, that the doctor is right and all the parallel timlines are just made up to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh.

I look forward on comments to my interpretation. Greetings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.59.98.102 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

You are quite right my friend. Only Evan knows what's going on. I have thought about this for a while, and here's two theories I have:

-From a Science-Fiction view: By the fifth timeline, Evan's brain was broken. Leaking. When he went back in time and killed Kaleigh, he broke the child Evan's brain too, and accidentally left all the memories in it. Child Evan didn't know what to think, with 50 or 60 years of memories, as well as killing Kalleigh, he broke down and was then committed. The doctor would have thought all Evan's stories were just stories, but they were actual time-travelling.

OR

-From a medical point of view: Evan actually killed Kalleigh. There was no time-travelling; he made it all up, and he is crazy, which he inherited from his father. As well, Evan has a brain tumor which is killing him. By the end of the movie, Evan breaks into the doctor's office and hallicinates he has fixed everything and everyone is happy. Evan actually dies, and Kalleigh has been dead for a long time.

I'm not sure which is right and which is wrong. It's very open-ended to interpretation, but I'm pretty sure they meant the Sci-Fi version. (They have an episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer like this too; drives me crazy thinking about the nuances of this..) JimmmyThePiep 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistake!!

Someone added this in the continuity section:

"In one timeline, Evan goes to Kayleigh's father's house. He holds her father against the house, and reminds him that they had a chat when he was only seven. Since Evan found out where she lived, it is assumed that her father remembered, and told him in fear. However, in that same timeline, Kayliegh mentions that they had had sex in front of her father's video camera."

The person interpreted this WRONG. Kayleigh and Evan did NOT have sex in front of the video camera. All Kayleigh said was "Go back to when I was seven, and **** me in front of my Dad's video camera, and straighten me out a bit." She was just saying that to hurt him and offend him by telling him to go do that. It NEVER happened. Evan changed that time line when he was a teenager, so when they were kids and in the basement it had STILL been altered by Evan the first time he changed things, so nothing happened in the basement. Bottom line, they DIDN'T have sex. Kayleigh was just saying that to hurt Evan. Dark Spidey 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Evan the Murderer

I think it's important that Evan is technically a murderer walking free: -first, he kills Tommy in somewhat self-defense, somewhat cold-blood. -he also kills the two men in prison. -not to mention the accidental murder of Kaleigh with the filibuster.

Just because the timeline's changed doesn't mean he himself didn't choose to kill Tommy; it just means the murder didn't stick.

• (Another Note; at the end, when everything's all happy, it might be pointed out that Evan has literally erased people from existence. Kaleigh's mother started a family, and by throwing Kaleigh into her mother's timeline, that family never existed.)(.. not really murder; just deletion.) JimmmyThePiep 13:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Evan never murdered anyone. At best killing Tommy was self-defense. At worst it was voluntary manslaughter, not murder. The 2 men in prison were just assaulted, not killed. Kaleigh's death was not murder because it was not an intentional act, it was an accident. And you can't murder people who never existed in the first place. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Evan shouldn't have been sent to prison for killing Tommy because it should have been self defense. Consider the fact it was Tommy was the one with the bat Evan was lucky to even get it away from him without getting killed himself. I believe that this "Perfect timeline" wasn't so perfect and Kaleigh didn't back up Evan's story to the cops. Consider the fact she complains about the special evening Evan prepared for her. Also when Evan is in prision his mom suggested that Kaleigh wasn't doing well. Kaleigh isn't worth the trouble Evan went for her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.203 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, he escaped from prison, he didn't get let off. Second, he didn't kill the two people in prison, he just stabbed them. Third, he accidently killed Kayleigh. Fourth, if he didn't kill Tommy, he may have been killed himself, or suffered serious damage, which is self-defense. Evan never murdered anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And why was Kayleigh so defensive over Tommy in the first place. At worst, Evan used excessive force against Tommy, but would Tommy have tried to kill him later on anyways... probably. Evan was protecting himself, but also took his anger out on Tommy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was hard to feel sorry for Tommy, whether he was murdered or not, and whether Evan used excessive force or not. You had to feel worse for Evan for being attacked in the first place.74.7.3.202 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify; You cant kill a person that never existed. If I had "saved" reality as it is present then went out and killed alot of people, then "loaded" back to the saved reality, i wouldnt be a killer since the people that i killed never existed. What is happening to Evan is that he slowly looses his "loading device" (journals). If he cant reset the timeline he will only go deeper into caos... Thats whats happening. The only person he killed was himself (DC version). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azylum (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture Poster...

I have seen the poster included on the article and it says "Date Demi Moore...Get Your Own Movie" ... a little photoshop there, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamael (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Yea, somebody already pointed that out. You must have eyesight, or else you wouldn't have noticed. JimmmyThePiep 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The real posture should be something like this; http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/butterfly_effect.jpg . I don't know anything about the fair usage terms in relation to Wikipedia so I'll let someone else take care of this. Kishyotai (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Groundhog day (Comparisons)

For the Comparisons section:

The scene in which Evan attempts to reveal his powers and problems to the addict version of Kayleigh in the cafe is reminiscent of a similar scene in groundhog day. Bill Murray's character tells Andie MacDowell's what is happening to him, how he is reliving the same day over and over, and then goes on to prove it by telling her things about herself he could not possibly know unless this strange event was happening. This is similar to how Evan is reliving the same few memories of his life over and over again, seeing how his actions effect what happens (just as Murray's character does in his day) and then proves it to Kayleigh in exactly the same manner as Murray.

Umm, I know I'm not particularily talented at writing wiki-worthy-words but if someone could write a better version of what I said I feel it's worthy of inclusion.

Trivia?

Is it just me or did the whole trivia section just dissapear?

It doesn't add any understanding of the subject the article is on, this is why it is listed in Wikipedia Guidelines that trivia sections are discouraged. Plus, this article is not a stub. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Age of Evan after 7?

Excuse me, After he was 7 It said "7 years after" This would of made him 14, NOT 13! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Fighter (talk • contribs) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Butterfly Effect - Poster.jpg

Image:The Butterfly Effect - Poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references section

User:DJH47 keeps removing the cultural references section, apparently in response to a discussion we had on the Talk:Rock Lobster page. So far, he's deleted cultural references on a number of pages, as seen from his edit history. I've tried to get him to discuss his feelings on talk pages before deleting entire sections of content, but so far he hasn't, so I'm starting this section here to hopefully facilitate the discussion.

I feel the cultural reference sections are valid and noteworthy. When I write in my edit summaries that they are supported by consensus, I'm referring to the fact that almost every article on a book/flm/tv show/song has a section on wikipedia mentioning some of the noteworthy references both contained in the work, and also referring back to the work. That's easy to see, simply by searching.

References to a work in other media help to establish notability. Maybe this isn't necessary for huge articles or subjects like Star Wars, but for other, middle-of-the-road articles, it helps to indicate that a work is notable and has entered the mainstream.

Again, I would assert that the "cultural references" sections of wikipedia articles have been attained by popular consensus from the large number of article that have the section. I would ask that they not all be unilaterally deleted without discussion. Snowfire51 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In all the "Cultural References" sections I have seen on other articles, the references are for ones made within the article's subject to an external cultural event. So, for example, if somewhere within the movie The Butterfly Effect a reference was made to Family Guy, that reference would appear on The Butterfly Effect's page. I have never seen a reference go the other way. That is, a reference made in Family Guy to The Butterfly Effect appearing on The Butterfly Effect page. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I believe the reference that is under dispute belongs on the Family Guy page, NOT The Butterfly Effect's page. Captain Infinity (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this because last time I gave examples, the editor in question went through and deleted all of them without discussing any of his deletions. Just off the top of my head, here are examples of other works that have a section on Cultural References that not only mention references in the work itself, but also external references back to the subject of the page. Braveheart mentions not only the Family Guy reference, but also South park and The Office.Doctor Who has an extensive section on other works that reference back to it. The Matrix is a fairly well-kept page, with a short list of examples of other works that reference its concepts and film-making techniques. Even The Sopranos has an extensive list of works that reference or pay homage to it.

It still seems to me that the "cultural impact" sections of wikipedia pages go both ways, in the interest of providing full information and establishing notability. The notability factor may not be a high one when discussing The Sopranos or Doctor Who, but on smaller works such as The Butterfly Effect or Rock Lobster (song), it can show the work is still culturally significant. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The references are not kept because there is a legitimate reason to keep them, rather, a small enclave of fandom has invaded Wikipedia and wishes to cross-reference every article into a tangled mess of "intertextuality" (their buzzword). Notability does not require the approval of other works, but rather that of journalistic or academic sources. --DJH47 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, you're establishing a new, wikipedia-wide consensus, based solely on your own feelings and opinions. If you feel this is the correct way to go about things, can I suggest that instead of deleting other editors work without explanation or discussion, that you instead work with other editors to establish a new consensus? Snowfire51 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been giving legitimate justifications for my actions which goes along with wiki-wide quality-article consensus. What else do you need? --DJH47 (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amedo.jpg

Image:Amedo.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) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In Response to Klptyzm

On the contrary, the plot summary is only 152 words. 'Sometimes a more complex plot may call for a longer summary.' [Summaries] Back to the Future 2's plot summary is currently 842 words. Plots with multiple timelines are inherently complicated. While the subheadings and age summaries would need to go, the timeline summaries should be distilled to one sentence each and information which is repeated elsewhere in the summary should be removed. You have yet to engage in discussion on this talk page for such a major edit and evidently a controversial one. 121.44.108.62 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir, please tell me how 2,800 approximate words is necessary for a plot summary? I doubt the plot is that complicated; I'm sure 10 year olds can figure out the gist of what happens in the first watching. This doesn't need to be discussed on the talk page; I've cited WP:PLOT and basically stated what it goes into detail on: the plot is too big and sometimes oversized plots can constitute copyright violation. I like the fact that you apparently have an idea of how to fix the plot, but am pretty annoyed you've simply reverted instead of putting your ideas to work. I already said I'm open to extending the plot well enough to explain the plot but without being an insane length, which the current plot is. Once again, I'm going to revert the large, unnecessary plot; if it's done again, that very much constitutes vandalism. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the extended plot summary very helpful and informational. Zeke72791 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Helpful and informational is not what Klptyzm was arguing. "Plot summaries should be between 300 and 500 words for a typical episode or story, and longer as needed for adequate discussion of a longer work, especially if the plot is very complicated." Klptyzm, I must guess, was arguing exactly that, that plot summaries should be between 300 and 500 words for a typical episode or story. This is a normal movie, and I don't see why we can't pare down the text to be closer to 500 words.

To clear up some confusion, the plot summary is not 152 words, the plot summary is over 2800 words. Also, the plot summary doesn't appear to me to be a copyright violation. Please do not blank the article text, and instead discuss the issue here. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was saying. I wasn't really trying to hint that this plot was constituting copyright violation, but that it very well grow to that size. Considering that I've cited WP:PLOT in some of my edits removing the text, I honestly don't feel this needs to be discussed; at best, it will just end in the conclusion I suggested in one of those said edits: to extend the shorter plot summary to an extent that is a reasonable size and explains the plot thoroughly. The editors, especially the one above, simply ignore this fact and revert my edits and attempt to call them "vandalism." The editor above even tried to remove warnings I have given him or her. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And he was perfectly in the right to remove those warnings, as you were abusing the template. You need to read "What vandalism is not". --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if reverts policy supported edits without a valid reason? Even when the editor doesn't even try to discuss it until weeks after the issue arises? Well if it's apparently ok to ignore policy, then let me go back to a few past issues where policy was consulted and let me tell all the users involved that they are wrong to use policy as a defense. That's ridiculous man. It would be a different story if there was only one plot section up and I blanked it; I know full well that's vandalism. But there are two duplicate plot summaries up, one that is of ridiculous size, and one that is quite sufficient, but perhaps needs to be expanded a bit. The fact that such an issue is even being discussed is ridiculous in itself. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If we removed the current plot summary and edited the timeline summaries into something shorter but kept the basic idea, wouldn't we all be happy? --Darklink90 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Klptyzm and I have both made our own suggestions for doing a summary between the 152 word length summary and the 2800 word length summary (should be far closer to the 152 obviously). It's really just waiting for someone who cares enough about this to actually wade through all those timelines summaries and cut then down to a half-reasonable length. 121.44.28.188 (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I'm removing the bigger one and encouraging additions to the smaller one. I honestly haven't seen the movie in a while, so I'm not too sure the info I remember right now is totally reliable. Also, honestly I'm not even sure the smaller one even needs to be extended as I don't see how the plot is uber complex; I suggested that mainly out of compromise. If editors will actually take the time to edit the smaller plot summary instead of doing repetitive reverts, then we certainly all would be happy. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

2002?

I was just wondering, where is it stated that the present timeline takes place in 2002? It was mostly (if not entirely) filmed in 2003. I'm not arguing that it doesn't, i just wondered where it oficially says the main story is 2002 and not 2003. What was so important about 2002? I haven't watched the movie in awhile, that's why i asked. Terminator14 (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

New Poster

I've added a new poster image from IMDB with fair use rationale in mind since I noticed there had been some issues in the past with keeping up the fair use rationale. Enjoy. Yaminator (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary needs rewriting

The plot summary of the movie reads like far too conversationally and needs some heavy rewriting. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to my (Klptyzm's) old version that I edit. It's kind of sad that even after such a discussion above, people still won't listen to reason. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That looks a LOT better. I was hunting through versions to try and find something, thanks! -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's you, Klptyzm, back on your quest to eviscerate the article, I see. Who let you out of the 5th dimension this time? --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PLOT. I pray that the thousands of sentences of text above about why the article needs to be changes will finally be read. Stuff like this is partially why I left. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not try bullying your WP:PLOT on a film that people care about....try Blade Runner for instance, that's got an enormous plot section. See how far you get. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument works along the same lines as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because you found an article that has a long plot section, doesn't refute that the most useful plot sections are short and to the point. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it seems to have a somewhat complicated plot, if there are multiple versions. Note that I quickly glanced at it; even with that said, the past version of this article's plot section was much longer than Blade Runner's. Why not give up this petty quarrel and just try to expand the current plot section a bit? 144.96.26.167 (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Complicated? More complicated than The Butterfly Effect's plot? Compared to TBE, Blade Runner is amazingly straightforward. Folks aren't going to come to this article for a single paragraph synopsis, they're going to come here hoping for explanations of what the movie is about. And they'll be disappointed now, because the article tells them nothing. As for "giving up the petty quarrel", I'm not reverting you anymore, am I? And for two reasons; I'm an eventualist, and know that the article will eventually grow into what it should be once you've tired of eviscerating it (I see from your contribs that this is the only movie article you are concerned with) and because I DGAF. --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently it is, because for one, I don't edit Wikipedia that much anymore because of this type of stuff that's happening now, and two, I keep editing this article because all the editors that supported the ridiculously sized plot section that violated WP:PLOT won't do crap to expand the smaller one (which is what I truly want, though I know that other editors who were reverting it are very capable of expanding it to a satisfactory size). I'm getting increasingly agitated with the "the article sucks now" arguments; if it's bad now, why not expand the smaller one then??? Why not do policy-sanctioned editing instead of incessant reverting??? And you're not giving up the quarrel because you won't fix up the plot. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Every time I "fix the plot" you revert. You've clearly decided to own the article and see no edits but your own as worthy of keeping. It's not worth my time to fight a troll like you because I know you will eventually tire of this and move on to some other article, at which time this one will be fixed. --Captain Infinity (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting to a excessive version of the plot section is hardly fixing the plot; you obviously haven't read WP:PLOT. Kindly do it and keep unnecessary accusations to yourself. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. And that version you like was even tagged with a "plot" tag. That should say something. 144.96.26.167 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How far this article has come...121.44.40.20 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm enjoying the incessant immaturity one editor is exhibiting. And by enjoying I mean it needs to stop. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at rewriting the plot summary. I think I've struck a balance between the desire to keep the page uncluttered and the desire to fairly depict the plot of the film. I hope this works for all sides. Stile4aly (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I feel a little more fleshing out could be placed in the article, I (Klptyzm) feel the contributions are very sufficient and I thank you. 144.96.26.32 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Properly explained the Noon Day Stalker ending

What with it being a funny ending, I've actually explained the Noon Day Stalker ending. It probably could be written a bit better but it'll do for now until someone feels like tweaking it. 86.148.125.81 (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Oscy

This has been removed. Continuing to reinsert this nonsense will not be tolerated. Stile4aly (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-entered the explanation. Unless you can actually give valid reason for not including it, as opposed to just deleting it when no-one else had for over a month (because there is seemingly no reason to) and throwing about accusations of "vandalism" and "nonsense", I will have to continue re-inserting this accurate, adequately-written information.

Grow up. 86.177.126.51 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1) "Grow up"? Please see WP:Civil. You're not helping your case. 2) Multiple people feel this is vandalism. I'm inclined to agree unless you can provide a source to back up your information. Can you? Doniago (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's about time you bucked up your ideas and FINALLY took it to the Discussion page. It was like talking to a brick wall. The DVD's deleted scenes. I believe it's the Director's Cut. 86.177.127.164 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Given that multiple people have reversed your edits in the past, they're not -my- ideas. 2) Personally I'd like to hear from someone who isn't you that these edits are legitimate, but I appreciate that your notes are now sourced. Doniago (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you're right, I meant Captian Infinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.116.55 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The link supplied for this nonsense leads to a YouTube video. First of all, YouTube videos are not allowed as references on Wikipedia. Secondly, nowhere in the video does anything exist that mentions garbage such as stalkers or underwear. Find a proper cite or this stupidity will be removed again. --Captain Infinity (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply used the Youtube link that was ALREADY UP THERE when I was originally editing the section. If you had been paying attention, you would know this. The two scenes I am talking about are on the DVD. You have constantly undone my edits and have been very rude to me yet it appears you have not even watched the director's cut DVD nor the deleted scenes in question! If you do not know anything about it, don't butt in, and certainly don't butt in accusing other people of "garbage" and other such insults.