Talk:Vanilla Sky

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• King, Mike (2008). "Groundhog Day, The Apostle, and Vanilla Sky". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 225–227. ISBN 0786439882.

Very close remake?

How can anyone write 'This film is a "very close remake" of'. It's either a remake or it is not. In this case it is a remake, and a really bad one I must add. Most sense of horror and delusion is completely vanished in Vanilla Sky. The characters also seem far more shallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.108.192 (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Let's see, this is my first entry into the world of Wikipedia editing and thus thought I would ask on here, Tom Cruise was in no way related to Katie Holmes during the filming of this movie to the best of my knowledge and her appearence would be random...correct?

I agree. Vanilla Sky was filmed in 2001. He was dating his on-screen romance Penelope Cruz during and after the filming. He broke up with Penelope Cruz in January 2005. He only started dating Katie Holmes in April of 2005. So the image of Katie in Time Square was just a coincidence.

Monet & Vanilla Sky

Googling does not find any Monet called "Vanilla Sky" (other than by reference to the movie). There are two contenders for being the picture in the film. Does anyone know what the picture is for sure? The Anome 20:25 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=monet%20%22vanilla%20sky%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wi One site calls it "The Scene at Argenteuil". I think the name Vanilla Sky comes from the song that's played over the credits, but I'm not sure on that one. risk 22:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

the song (by paul mccartney) was composed after the fact......see the dvd extras for an interview with paul on this. Vanilla sky is a throwaway phrase of david's in describing an original monet in his apartment

Phillip K. Dick?

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that this film was based upon Philip K. Dick's stories. Honestly, the only connection I see is that, like many of his stories, it deals with an artificial reality and that it involves Life Extension, a key part of many of his works. Anyone else know if there really is a connection? -Fuzzy 21:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a supporting reference, but Ubik looks a particular possibility (an idea I find has been raised many times - see Google). That involves a central character who is cryonically frozen and dreaming his own reality, and not realising it until someone from outside explains the situation. User:Raygirvan Apr 10 2005

Dick's novel which tells this story is "Frozen Journey", surprisingly it has been unnoticed (to my knowledge) until this notice. The context of "Frozen journey" is different, the basics of the plot lies in the fact that though the hero could dream the bestest dreams, he can't help falling into nightmares.

Another good example of Dick's work in this area, and there are yet more, however I have to agree with Raygirvan and say it's Ubik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.242.123 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Though uncredited, the film is a complete rip-off of the PKD short story called "I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon." In the story, the protagonist's sleep function in his cryo-pod fails during a long intergalactic voyage, so the ship's AI tries to feed him artificial dreams so he doesn't lose his mind. Each of these dreams manifests the protagonist's guilt and failures (as what occurs in Vanilla Sky) threatening to cause the Protagonist permanent psychological harm. At the end of the story, the ship's AI discovers that the best solution is to just feed the protagonist a fake dream where the ship arrives, lands, he awakens, and goes about his daily life, and the AI puts this on infinite repeat. The protagonist experiences this scenario so many times that when he finally does land for real, he know longer trusts in the authenticity of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.205.131 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Theories" section

Anyone else think this is way too informal? Frankly, I think the article would be better if it were just removed, but at the very least it needs heavy editing.

I think it should be properly sourced first and renamed to "Themes". Also, I've found an interesting article which should qualify as a reliable source to expand the section afterwards. :) --Koveras ^☭ 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

hey visual continuity error hounds

I'm gonn get a little philosophical on ya. j'ever think if there is a visual continuity error or two in that movie it only kinda serves to enhance the weird timeless/ time shifting thing that goes on throughout? I kinda think so at some parts. KzzRzzKnocker 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's yet another reason why the whole movie must be just one of David's Lucid Dreams. --Scion, LSCM Webmaster 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whole Movie a Dream?

It's mentioned in this that the whole movie is a dream, yet in the movie, they said the dream only started after the night he got drunk at the nightclub. --Ulyaoth 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole movie has to be a dream. Why? Because when David wakes up in his apartment the first time, just before he discovers he's alone in New York City, Sofia Serrano's voice is the one that wakes him up. She's the voice on his alarm clock and he wakes up alone. Except he hasn't met her yet. He doesn't meet her until his birthday party later that evening. When he wakes up the second time, it's Julie's voice on his alarm clock and she's still in his bed. --Scion, LSCM Webmaster 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Background on changes to introduction

Earlier versions of this article have made various attempts to sum up the film in the introduction without including any spoilers. Since its too complex to really summarize well in a single sentence, I changed the introduction yet again and took the approach of quoting various published film critics about the kind of film it is. This approach also helps compensate for the focus in the unsourced analysis on only the science fiction aspects, like brain in a vat and similarities to works by Philip K. Dick. 66.167.138.237 11:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC).

removal of analysis

I enjoyed reading the analysis section, and I do not believe it is in alignment with what Wikipedia is. Find someone notable who said the ideas there, and then put it in... Sethie 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

psychology

doesn't the psychology in the film (in the jail cruz is talking to a psychiatrist) conflict with Tom's own beliefs?

Tom Cruise is a member of the Church of Scientology which takes a strong stance against psychiatry, which is different from psychology (although it's not as simple as that either, just wanted to make the distinction clear.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.242.123 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Salon "typically" negative

It seems to me that calling a Salon.com review "typically negative" is a POV statement. No? — vijay (Talk) 07:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually know of salon.com or its reviews, but I'm sure this wording would be to do with statistics; either the majority of reviews of (big budget) movies are "negative" or compared to other movie review sites. Perhaps if it is commonly known or thought that salon.com gives so-called 'negative reviews' then the 'typically negative' wording actually justifies this as in, rather than implying the movie is 'bad' because salon.com says so, include that salon.com is known to give out harsh reviews. So it could be an opinion, or true. Investigate. 80.47.85.45 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved up to B-class

Having read through the criteria, I believe this article is now worth a B-class. I will continue to improve it and hopefully bring up its standard even more. Schizmatic 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I am going to add a spoiler warning tag to the Plot section. - /dev/null 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

New discussions goes at the bottom of the page. And I'm removing the warning tag; please read WP:SPOILER for guidelines. Kariteh 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is why Wikipedia has lost much of its popularity. Goofy guidelines assembled by amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Production notes

Does anyone know which film Dr. McCabe's figure was taken from? Also, the Tech Support mentions some album cover where David took that one scene of him and Sofia walking together... I think these two are notable enough to include them in the section. --Koveras ^☭ 20:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Found the album cover by chance. --Koveras ^☭ 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

MEANINGS BEHIND THE MOVIE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.129.172 (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I saw this film as a play on the guilt niggling in the back of the mind of someone who uses/abuses people and then pretends to be the "nice person" and live "happliy ever after". I saw the whole thing as a hyperbole illustration of the psychological guilt someone might go through in that situation. As perfect as his new life with the "perfect woman" was, his own mind and guilt wouldn't ever allow him to experience it as perfect. I thought the other themes to the movie having it like lucid dreaming were just added as tools to be able to dramatically demonstrate the point of how he felt and the moral point of what the writer was trying to say. But when I look up the meaning it says nothing about this sort of thing. Does anyone else see this movie that way?

"Vanilla Sky is a 2001 American psychological thriller film..."

"American" is kind of obvious, just like (I would guess) most of the films on Wiki. Maybe "American" should be removed? The 1st sentence is cumbersome as it is. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot - about the mask

"David survives, though his face is scarred up so badly he wears a mask to hide the embarrassment from the world so that people will not stare or look at his face".
This sentence seems too long. I would suggest removing the bold part. What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NYT

"...and the NYT reviewer saying she gives a "ferociously emotional" performance.".
I think this abbreviation should be removed, and "New York Times" should be used instead. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and since you didn't change it, I did TorW (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical Sentence under "Clues"

Can anyone explain the meaning of:

"While interviewing David, the doctor states he is from Ohio. This is what Brian said where he came from (during the party) but David negates it."

Seems rather ambiguous and confusing to me. Could stand to be more focused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperFlexed (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's horrible but about par for articles I've read here recently. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigur Ros

This article states the track used is "Untitled #4 (a.k.a. 'Njósnavélin'". Yet the article for the soundtrack itself (Music from Vanilla Sky) states "Svefn-g-englar". Which is it? 89.168.154.86 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Q: Who was Ellis?

IIRC (haven't seen the movie in a few months), towards the end, when David was in prison w/Dr. McCabe, David says he doesn't dream and the doc counters saying he kept calling out "Ellis" in his sleep. Who was Ellis? Did I miss him or was he a character edited out of the movie? Was Ellis or an equivalent character in the original (Open Your Eyes)? Phantom in ca (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question: I just watched Open Your Eyes. In that movie César (the David character), in his dreams called out what the doc thought was "Eli", a person's name, but was really "L.E.", the abbreviation for the company, Life Extension. Phantom in ca (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended Edition

Someone told me that there is an extended edition where he wakes up at the end 150 years in the future. I cannot find this ANYWHERE on the internet. Does it exist? - Heaney555z (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vanilla Sky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813202824/http://www.cameroncrowe.com/eyes_ears/films/vanillasky/vanillasky_overview.html to http://www.cameroncrowe.com/eyes_ears/films/vanillasky/vanillasky_overview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)