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)

• Count to three! If the story deals with two time tunnels it#s narrated out of a third perspective.

One yesterday, two possible yesterdays and one now. The present being shown in different axes, angles and subjectives doesn't mean it's a fourth time. or? In future you may understand me!--88.77.211.30 (talk) 08:22, 9 March 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)

Alternative 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)

Technical knowledge

• Can anybody explain what snow white really means. [ AR ] It's not white water in frozen form.--88.77.211.30 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It pretends to be a programm, that is able to go back four and a half day in time._and this past can be shown from different perspectives, not only god ones.So in the story is a game scooter installed which plays philosophical views. I think!it#s a good idea to change past time action and by opposing end them.A higher level of einstein's relativity theorie isn't ever fixed in a film. In former days it's just has been a fairy tale...--Danaide (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot Chart

Didn't this article used to have a great chart that explained the 4 timelines simply? I thought I saw it here, but if not it's on the web somewhere and would be a huge addition to this article and help people understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.145.175.190 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Events prior to the first two timelines removed again!

You are so obsessed with the letter of the rules that you ignore common sense and the facts (ironically you do this despite the existence of a wikipedia rule about common sense and about ignoring rules if they go against the spirit of the rules, against the goals of wikipedia, or if they produce an inferior work). So we are left with mandates to remove plot points crucial to the movie and greater misunderstanding being spread by wikipedia. Good job. You are spreading misinformation under the guise of providing better information for the masses.

Now consider this. Say in a movie character A gets into a car. The next shot has said character suddenly driving away but there is no scene of him physically starting the engine and turning the key. In fact, this second shot is from the outside so we can't really even see who's driving. Well did he start the engine? Did he drive away?

Things that happen off screen still happen and do not need a reference.

Starstriker7, you understand what the issues all are. You know that the removal of the explanation of events prior to the movie is crucial for understanding the plot. To leave that out is to misinform. Do you agree or disagree that in this case wikipedia is misinforming people by passing off a partially complete plot summary full of plot holes as the entire story?

Perhaps looking at the Memento film article could be useful. 64.145.175.190 (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

The movie Pulp Fiction has no explicit mention in the movie that the scenes are arranged in non-chronological order and yet its wikipedia article plot section describes the story chronologically. Surely the same thing applied here. As it stands the Deja Vu plot summary is extremely misleading 74.197.250.31 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the chunk of original research which accompanied this rant once again. The plot section can be reworded to point out that events do not occur in chronological order if that is required, but the huge "timeline" image is entirely inappropriate original research. It is not our place to analyse plots for people. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris you are clearly ignoring the good faith rule and clearly have not seen the movie because all the scenes are in chronological order. 69.181.250.72 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Great

This is a great film. What's the problem with the critics? The only thing missing is that Denzel (in the film) should have explained that IF his fingerprints were in the apartment, then he must have been there - ergo, he was there. Time to switch on the time machine.--andreasegde (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

center axes

The time lines like depicted are interesting, but somehow irritating. Isn#t it a circle system in time, which is interrupted by the viewers?_ so what, I recognized another axes, a spinning wheel, which doesn't run like time is normaly told. So the tunnel to go back is possible...--Danaide (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Buy yourself a time machine, because it's hard to remember what you did yesterday. That is what the film is actually about.--andreasegde (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed original research

At one point during the film Special Agent McCready acknowledges Doug Carlin's credentials as having been one of the primary investigators of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

This can be added again to Similarities between Timothy McVeigh and Carroll Oerstadt once a source has been found. --Peppage^tlk 18:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline image

The timeline image is certainly helpful, but I don't know if its entirely accurate. It indicates that the entirety of what we see in the movie takes place on the third and fourth timelines. It states that, at the end of Timeline 4 (ie the last scene of the film), "Carroll goes back to Claire's house but she isn't there." This is written in black text which means its not shown in the film. However, Carroll does not do this. We see in the film that immediately after setting the bomb and preparing himself to ride up to the bridge to watch the explosion, Carroll notices his own car parked on the sidewalk and realizes that something is amiss. He dismounts his motorcycle and rushes back onto the ferry, where he eventually meets Doug, gets into a gunfight, and dies. Carroll never goes back to Claire's house and realizes that she's not there...Carroll goes right back onto the ferry. 192.83.228.119 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline image part 2

I'm struggling to see any value in the timeline image for these reasons:

• Many readers have pointed out inaccuracies in its text. (As above)
• It's original research: the main "sources" given, far from stating canon, thank the writer for their efforts in their speculation. One of them offers alternative theories.
• You can't add sources to individual lines of text because it's one big image.
• It mostly deals with banal/unimportant areas of the plot. i.e. you can watch the film to its fullest without even considering the notion of four timelines.
• It's very confusing. The numbering of Doug1 and Doug2 makes no sense.
• Even with four timelines, it still can't explain how Doug's laser pointer went through a computer screen and ended up in the past.

It's also

• completely illegible when viewed inline in the article due to scaling of the text.
• rendered in a hideous, nonstandard font without antialiasing.
• rasterized
• completely inaccessible to screenreaders despite being almost all text.

In summary, it stands out like a sore thumb. I've been bold. goodbye image. 86.154.97.223 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back

Is there a category for movies which ignore the Grandfather paradox? This one certainly belongs in it. And is there any source for why the screenwriters ignored it (beyond being idiots)? It seems like Hollyweird can't resist a happy ending, or a sexy timeloop, even when it's completely nonsensical. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Grandfather paradox is not relevant to the branching theory of time used in this movie (which also seems to be used in Generations) 82.26.5.210 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is when it causes a causality paradox. There's nothing explicit saying there's branching; in fact, all the evidence in the film says there was none, & it makes a strong case they failed to create a new branch. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The time travel inventors do mention branching theory in their discussion, and there are two interpretations that seem to be consistent with what happened: (a) this was the second (or third, or fourth) attempt to change the timeline, so the clues left later were put there earlier by previous timeline-changing attempts which worked out differently, (b) it is only possible to branch the timeline when you die. (Regarding a category of movies that ignore the grandfather paradox, maybe it would be a good idea to have a category of time-travel movies in general, and divide it into types, e.g. Novikov self-consistency principle, many-worlds interpretation etc. But there might be some debate about movies that try to confuse you about what's really happening by giving characters the wrong ideas.) 82.26.5.210 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the theory doesn't equate with achieving a branching. Any earlier efforts don't produce a noticable change, so no branch. (That Carlin believes his partner is on vaction, when he may, in fact, be dead, isn't evidence of anything.) As for death as causal, that's only to avoid the paradox of two of him (which even Hollyweird screenwriters can see), & to provide a happy ending.

I'd agree, a cat for time travel films would be good. ("Terminator", "T2", "Timecop", & "The Time Machine", for a start...) IDK what you mean about "wrong ideas", tho. (We might also see some debate over use of flashbacks, so "Sunset Boulevard" might be offered, or films told in unconventional ways, like "Memento".) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooops... There's already a cat for it... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The grandfather paradox doesn't apply here; it only applies when you're changing the same timeline as the one you rely on to exist. One of the characters in this film makes a point of showing a set of branching timelines to indicate that this is not the case; i.e. you are changing a "copy" of the original timeline from the one you originally came from. (It should also be noted that the writers complained that the movie was a butchered version of their original script :( and their original script was flawless in its logic apparently, make of that what you will) 213.123.192.77 (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cellphone network's reaction to identical phones?

The opening plot involving Carlin hearing his ringtone from a body bag (the implication being that the person in the body bag really is him, not just someone else that happened to have an identical ringtone), implies that he carried his cellphone back with him when he travelled through time. If it really was the ringtone and not an alarm/reminder, that means he left the cellphone switched on when travelling through time, so the cellphone network would have seen two identical cellphones (at one point in the same location) with identical IMEI and SIMs, and one of these got the incoming call but the other did not. Does anyone have a reference about whether this is what would really happen? or is it more likely that both phones would ring, or that neither would work at all. (+ is there anything in the movie to definitely indicate it was a ringtone and not just a PDA alarm?) 82.26.5.210 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

- I don't know the answer to your question but , on the offchance you don't know, *Primer* deals with that exact point 86.136.82.80 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cars

What is wondering me, is why Oerstadt calls Kuchever for her car, 7 hours before his car got shot? --91.37.179.56 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sure there was a comment about him trying several possibilities - called her, but dropped that when he gpt the other vehicle, them went back to her after Minuti messed his plans. -- Beardo (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Plot description is wrong

Briefly the film is based on the theory of Multiverse ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Multiverse ) . What describes in the plot is completely wrong.The films doesn't depict any time travel at all as described in the plot section. In fact , film describes about multiple universe theorem clearly. Vinodsreehari (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Explanation given in the movie; 2) Brian Greene's explanation; 3) Pedia's explanation. It seems to me that in the film there are the idea of time travel through a wormhole, and a specific idea of parallel universes which exclude each other. --79.26.63.247 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

African Americans travel time

Did anyone notice that it's the first film to portray an African American traveling time ? --81.66.217.182 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Déjà Vu (2006 film). 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/20130309045830/http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10474.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_10474.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://legacy.fanboyplanet.com/interviews/mc-briangreene.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184217/http://www.saturnawards.org:80/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html#scifi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Déjà Vu (2006 film). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://legacy.fanboyplanet.com/interviews/mc-briangreene.php%20%22the%20way%20I%20try%20to%20explain%20wormholes%20in%20terms%20of%20bending%20paper%20and%20connecting%20the%20corners%2C%20that%27s%20there%20in%20the%20film%20and%20it%20was%20fun%20to%20see%20that%20that%20made%20it%20in%22
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dejavu22nov22%2C0%2C5359121.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211202448/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_11_21/ai_n27098586 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_11_21/ai_n27098586/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saturnawards.org/past.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Déjà Vu (2006 film). 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/20081013042342/http://movies.about.com/od/washingtondenzel/a/dejavu020706.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/washingtondenzel/a/dejavu020706.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007222753/http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavuts111606.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavuts111606.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003095208/http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavujc111606.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/a/dejavujc111606.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213040724/http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/gr/dejavu041707.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/dejavu/gr/dejavu041707.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)