Xixax Film Forum

i believe i read that they recently rereleased DD on DVD and it has a couple of more things....an extra commentary and anatomy of a scene thingy

is this true or just misinformation?

i just saw this film a couple weeks ago.

there have been rumors floating around that there will be a donnie darko rerelease sometime in the future, but that hasn't been substantiated.  there is only one release so far, and the 'anatomy of a scene' featurette listed on the box of the dvd isn't included on the dvd.  don't know what the extra commentary this rumour speaks of.  can you point out to me where you first heard it?

Quote from: sphinxthe 'anatomy of a scene' featurette listed on the box of the dvd isn't included on the dvd.

i demand an explanation for that. Mac? sick fins? Richard Kelly?

i have no clue. it's a blur. i just saw the film and read what i could.
so the anatomy of a scene is actually printed on the box? hmmm...
if i remember correctly, Kelly said he wished that Criterion would do a version for him........do you think that would ever happen?

doubbbbt it.  fox ain't gonna let go of the rights to those  (i think it's fox)

they're selling it for so cheap......i wonder if the british release will have different things......its in theaters there now i believe......does criterion actually own the rights? films like The Royal tenenbaums are released originally through them........maybe its part ownership?

Quote from: bigideasthey're selling it for so cheap......i wonder if the british release will have different things......its in theaters there now i believe......does criterion actually own the rights? films like The Royal tenenbaums are released originally through them........maybe its part ownership?

touchstone/criterion had a dealy-thing when they released tenenbaums, but before that they had released rushmore first and then criterion got their hands on it.  you can expect a criterion version of wes' next film, and a 50% chance of seeing bottle rocket on criterion.

criterion does not own the rights to donnie darko, no, but the british version will probably have different cover art, i don't know about the features.

i structured the sentence funny.....i didn't think criterion had DD, i just thought, they could go part and part like RT........oh, but now i get what you're saying.....like rushmore was released by the original owner, DD has been released.......hmm, we'll never know til we know that we know, we know, do you know

Quote from: sphinx

you can expect a criterion version of wes' next film, and a 50% chance of seeing bottle rocket on criterion.

goddamn!  i would love this.  a criterion version of BOTTLE ROCKET would seem logical.  i really think this film is a lot better than THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS.  a commentary track would be cool too.  wes anderon and owen wilson talking about the bright yellow jump suits and cool nicknames like apple jack and rowboat.  it would also seem that criterion would include the short film BOTTLE ROCKET on the dvd.  i can dream, can i?

The Bottle Rocket Criterion rumors have been flying around for over a year now, and still no news. I wish Criterion would release some more recent and contemporary films.

Quote from: Duck SauceThe Bottle Rocket Criterion rumors have been flying around for over a year now, and still no news. I wish Criterion would release some more recent and contemporary films.

just remember that in 20 years, if criterion still exists, we'll all be in dvd heaven when they release films that were actually released when we were alive.

Quote from: sphinx

Quote from: Duck SauceThe Bottle Rocket Criterion rumors have been flying around for over a year now, and still no news. I wish Criterion would release some more recent and contemporary films.

just remember that in 20 years, if criterion still exists, we'll all be in dvd heaven when they release films that were actually released when we were alive.

DVDs wont make it that long

err, not DVDs, PLs.

Quote from: mogwaiOK, in which scene in da movie is the Tears for Fears song "Head over heels"? (I can't be arsed).

That long slo-mo stedi-cam shot that starts with Donnie getting off the bus and goes through the hallwall of the school, etc.

What's the big deal about Criterion? Seriously, most dvds that come out have more shit on them anyway than most Criterions. AND they're half the price.

I can see preserving older films like this and putting them into a line such as this, but do we really need a Donnie Darko CC or a Bottle Rocket CC? I think not.

studios just don't put the effort forth into producing such editions of films because it's not economically viable.  criterion focuses only on these types of film and doesn't have to spend as much money on marketing or other kinds of costs studios would be burdended with, so they can spend the extra money on making better editions and yes, the price has to be higher considering they won't sell as well as more popular films.

In Donnie Darko's case, it already has a decent edition. Yet, people are clamoring for a Criterion one. As for Bottle Rocket, why won't a Columbia release suffice?....And, there are titles that would have sold well without the Criterion moniker: The Rock, Armageddon, Silence of the Lambs, Robocop, Traffic, to a lesser extent the Wes Anderson flicks...

I'm not knocking the line's intentions, just the people that assume because it's Criterion, it has to be better.

compare the current robocop version and the cc robocop.

cc robocop rules.

cc usually has better transfers (if we're talking about an obscure foreign movie then yeah) and they don't lend their commentaries out to studios (usually). they gots the good shit.

criterion version of SOTL had a commentary by tony hopkins and the jodes...can't get any better than that

i was thoroughly entertained by her on the contact 'mentary

Quote from: cecil b. dementedcompare the current robocop version and the cc robocop.

Criterion RoboCop is the X-Rated director's cut; more violent and much bloodier. There is also commentary and more extras that the MGM release doesn't include.

Quote from: sphinxcriterion version of SOTL had a commentary by tony hopkins and the jodes...can't get any better than that

i was thoroughly entertained by her on the contact 'mentary

I actually still have a copy that is in its original shrink wrap.

quick question about possible plot holes in darko... if he has super human physical powers, as inferred by the ax in the head of the brass sculpture, why was he so helpless when the "BULLY" attacked him outside the cellar door. why couldnt he throw him off and save his girlfriend. also, if he knew that he was going into the past to kill himself in order to save his girlfriends life, why couldnt he just make a concious effort to never "fall in love" and never take her to the cellar door. if this was done, she woould never be hit by the car.  is it really neccessary that he kills himself? i think the biggest problem is, there are rules that supposedly govern the occurences within the world richard kelly creates, however those rules are never clearly articulated.

note: the following is all picolas' interpretation of the film in question and brimmed to the fill with spoilers...

Quote from: cowboykurtisif he has super human physical powers, as inferred by the ax in the head of the brass sculpture, why was he so helpless when the "BULLY" attacked him outside the cellar door. why couldnt he throw him off and save his girlfriend.

i'd say it's 'cause his powers only existed in the sleep/dream world and could only be summoned to help things to continue along the timeline they were supposed to... if he had pushed the bully away, Gretchen wouldn't have been run over and Frank wouldn't have been shot.

Quote from: cowboykurtisif he knew that he was going into the past to kill himself...

it took him a while to realize that. long after he met Gretchen.

Quote from: cowboykurtis...in order to save his girlfriends life...

and..the whole universe...

Quote from: cowboykurtiswhy couldnt he just make a concious effort to never "fall in love"

kinda hard to do, there..

Quote from: cowboykurtisis it really neccessary that he kills himself?

yeah. he's got to take one for the team.

Quote from: cowboykurtisthere are rules that supposedly govern the occurences within the world richard kelly creates, however those rules are never clearly articulated.

you'll find the complete rules somewhere in here (//www.donniedarko.com)...yeah...it's not the kind of movie that explains itself...but i guess that's partly what makes it so great. you decide what you think the rules are yourself...

i think a film is a garbage if you have to read a manual or listen to a commentary in order to make up for weak script. that's my biggest problem with darko. a film maker can't expect that every viewe is going to scower the internet for answers -- its either in the film or its not. everything else does not count.  also by the time gretchen dies, donnie is aware of what his task is. i feel that he goes into that bed knowing that hes going to die. if this is all in attempt to save her life, why doesnt he just reverse time  and leave town. its more logical than killing himself. if its just trying to be poetic, i dont feel it locically works. i disagree that donnie saved the world -- when are there ever allusions to that in the film?

Quote from: cowboykurtisi think a film is a garbage if you have to read a manual or listen to a commentary

i enjoy that you have to dig deeper to get truly concrete answers, but i still think that if you saw it by itself, you could make a bazillion different interpretations and not one of them would necessarily be wrong. you don't have to take a look at the site or listen to the commentary to decide what happened in that movie. it does still stand on its own...

Quote from: cowboykurtisby the time gretchen dies, donnie is aware of what his task is

well then, by your interpretation, he still wouldn't have known long enough in advance to "make a consious effort to never 'fall in love.'"

Quote from: cowboykurtisi disagree that donnie saved the world -- when are there ever allusions to that in the film?

"28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, 12 seconds. That is when the world will end."

then how does the act of killing himself save the world?

when referring to gretchen. by the time shes dead, donnie knows his task. he knows he has the ability to go back in time and undo her death. the act of killing himself prevents him from ever meeting her. im saying with that knowledge, why cant he go back in time, and just make a concious effort to never meet her? if ithe film is trying to say that their love was soo deep that he couldnt live without her, i feel that relationship wasnt developed enough.

Quote from: cowboykurtisthen how does the act of killing himself save the world?

well, personally i believe it to come from the idea that the engine was destined to kill him and he was destined to be killed by the engine. there was a mistake made somewhere along the way (most likely by a higher being), and the engine created this...other version of the last part of his life in order to let him make the events make sense. the mistake was that, although Donnie was 'sposed to be killed by the engine (for whatever reason, in the grand scheme of things), he was also the one meant to bring the engine into his bedroom by making it travel back through time by way of a wormhole/time machine he created in the future (AFTER his death). if he had lived the alternate timeline and not redirected the engine to his room (which had technically already happened), he would've created an enormous time paradox. if BTTF Part 2 taught us anything, it's that time paradoxes aren't yummy for the universe. just one causes the whole shebang to die.

so, yeah.

Quote from: cowboykurtishe knows he has the ability to go back in time and undo her death.

does he, though? i don't think the process of time travel as suggested by this movie is as simple as something you can flick on and off. it's a major event that takes a lot of time and preperation to pull off. if you go with the possibility that it's the WORLD at stake, and he's GOT to die, you can't just let him run away from Gretchen without denying the fact that the world will take a big hit for that. and what if Gretchen just acts as the motivation for him to go back in time, and as the key to the creation of Frank as a time travelling space ghost? without Gretchen's death you have even more paradoxes because suddenly Frank's out of the picture. say you're right about the idea that he can go back in time EASY and he does in order to never meet Gretchen. Donnie probably wouldn't have learned about his powers without Frank's guidance and again, Frank wouldn't exist unless he shot him if he hadn't run Gretchen over...and without the powers he wouldn't have been able to so easily travel back in time and prevent Gretchen from dying...

OOOOY!

do you actually think theres enough information within the film to make that conclusion? and if thats the case. your interpretation makes me think even less of this film. if all occurences in this film are controlled by a "higher being", it is an extremely weak plot device. if you have an "all powerful being"controlling the destanies of the protagnist, and really the outcome of the film, why should we care?  its a cheap way to solve problems. its ludacris.  to have  the inciting incident, and  every plot point and resolution based on something that inst in the protaganist control is so lazy. you can write anything, all motivations can be ludacris, all conflicts can be irrevelent -- as long as you put it on the shoulders of the "higher being", it allows the writer to be irresposible in his story telling. i think this film is garbage and the narrative collapses on its circular logic.

Quote from: cowboykurtisdo you actually think theres enough information within the film to make that conclusion?

yeah.

Quote from: cowboykurtisif all occurences in this film are controlled by a "higher being"...

i didn't said that, did i? i think Donnie had a choice, and that's why if that version of his life had gone on, the world would've ended just as Frank was sayin' earlier...or is that later?

picolas has been drinking brain tea.  :yabbse-thumbup:

you know the liquid like vectors that pertrude from his chest and lead him towards his predestined future? thats alluding to the fact that he is not in control of his actions. it leads him upstairs to the gun. it leads to him to every situation that will eventually assist to the killing of frank. if this is not the influence of a "a higher being" then what is it?

Quote from: cowboykurtisyou know the liquid like vectors that pertrude from his chest and lead him towards his predestined future? thats alluding to the fact that he is not in control of his actions. it leads him upstairs to the gun. it leads to him to every situation that will eventually assist to the killing of frank. if this is not the influence of a "a higher being" then what is it?

oh...fo sho it's the influence of a higher being. maybe this helps. 9i'm paraphrasing here0:

Donnie: so if you could see your path or channel, then you could see...into the future, right?

Monitof: wel...uhh...you're contradicting yourself there, donnie. if one could see their destinies manifest themselves physically, then we would have the choice to betray our destinies, making all pre-formed notions of time...come to an end...

Donnie: not if you travel within God's channel.

Monitof: ...i'm afraid i'm not going to be able to continue this conversation.

Donnie: why?

Monitof: i could lose my job.

Donnie: ...okay.

so, from that, Donnie could betray his destiny if he wanted to, 'speccially after considering the fact that he can see it right in front of him...in that respect, those spears are actually alluding to something completely the opposite of watchoo sayin'...

grrrrkcirbuppppppppeeeee...????//

Quote from: picolasDonnie: not if you travel within God's channel.

Monitof: ...i'm afraid i'm not going to be able to continue this conversation.

Donnie: why?

Monitof: i could lose my job.

Donnie: ...okay.

grrrrkcirbuppppppppeeeee...????//

yeah that scene was eerie. so basically the deal is u can't time travel unless to fulfil ur destiny. meaning if u can see into ur future, u better damn well do it or  or....bahhh picolbug.

Yeah... god forbid there be a movie that doesn't explain every last detail and we have to decide what possiblities exist... quicherbitchenthen

I feel there are some definate flaws in the film, but overall, still great.

Why the incarnation of Frank?

Quote from: cowboykurtisits ludacris.  

not to be an asshole actually, yeah, to be an asshole, ludacris is a rapper. it's ludicrous, bud.

thanks for the grammer lesson. i didn't know that slang wasn't allowed on posts. when's the Spelling B?

Quote from: cowboykurtiswhen's the Spelling B?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strandbooks.com%2Fimages%2Fbook_images%2F0395825172.gif&hash=f72f156995fa350b18f64c1cfe52669117ef9c4c) + (https://xixax.com/phpBB2/images/avatars/102.gif)

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: cowboykurtiswhen's the Spelling B?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strandbooks.com%2Fimages%2Fbook_images%2F0395825172.gif&hash=f72f156995fa350b18f64c1cfe52669117ef9c4c) + (https://xixax.com/phpBB2/images/avatars/102.gif)

you guyes are a sharpe crowde. i haf to ketch up on my spellin'. i dont nowe how I will everr keepe up wit ur intileect.

Usually on movies that make you think more, it takes multiple viewings to really appreciate it and understand the well written dramatic side to the movie, like appreciating the grounds on which the movie stands on since a lot of what is noticeable on the first is the coloring of it. This movie completely falters in multiple viewings because the dramatic grounds it has turns into something laughable as you realize the banality that is making a dramatic point that life is not measured by a straight line but instead goes outside and has different sides to it. Then Drew Barrymore taking the stand in front of everyone to stand up for writing material that is controversial in its themes, even if against the moral religous sect of her city. The grounds this movie stands are simple arguments that gone beyond cliche because everyone understands they are rules of lessons for 11 year olds, not major movie stories. With tossing respect out the window for that, the movie becomes a manic search for understanding the trickery and cuteness of the plot that gee golly isn't told straightforward. Contrivance is everywhere and we need to hunt them out like little terrorist sects bleeding all over this world. Our Man Bush would have it no other way. On the other hand, anything Tears for Fear brought back high stereo in a movie is a nice return to the small things that were good in the 80s.

~rougerum

Quote from: cowboykurtisthanks for the grammer lesson. i didn't know that slang wasn't allowed on posts. when's the Spelling B?

well, now that you mention it, it IS spelled grammar, and spelling and grammar are two ENTIRELY different things, my dear boy!


I'm sorry, I don't know why I'm such a dick sometimes.

Quote from: bonanzataz

Quote from: cowboykurtisthanks for the grammer lesson. i didn't know that slang wasn't allowed on posts. when's the Spelling B?

well, now that you mention it, it IS spelled grammar, and spelling and grammar are two ENTIRELY different things, my dear boy!


I'm sorry, I don't know why I'm such a dick sometimes.

if only you were my english teacher, you could have saved me before i went to shit. i think you've found your calling. be proud. keep your head up and keep doing what you do best.

:-D

Not that my opinion matters, but Donnie Darko is my favorite film since Magnolia. I absolutely love it. Been toying with the idea of a Richard Kelly site (he was very excited about it), but I just don't have the time :(

finally, someone who isnt crazy and suffering from donniedarkoisoverratedandyouneedtolistentothecommentarytounderstandthefilmism

Quote from: depooterNot that my opinion matters, but Donnie Darko is my favorite film since Magnolia. I absolutely love it. Been toying with the idea of a Richard Kelly site (he was very excited about it), but I just don't have the time :(

That sounds like a cool idea, but is there really enough material for it?

i don't understand how frank appears before the engine falls. he dies because the engine misses donnie. but the engine misses donnie because frank is there......right?

Yeah, I know it's been a long time since anyone wrote is this thread, but I think Donnie Darko is such a great film we can keep on discussing it. I've listened to both commentaries on the DVD, and I don't feel either of them really explain the movie. In fact, in all Kelly's interviews I've read he encourages the audience to come up with their own interpretation. I'm paraphrasing here from - I think - an interview he did in Empire "I like directors' commentaries, but just because Lynch tells me his film means one thing doesn't mean my opinion of what I think it means."

Also, I realise that Donnie supposedly has superhuman powers, but I never thought he had the power to control time. Monitof tells him that in order to time-travel you need a vessel made out of metal. I always assumed that the vessel was the plane's engine, and that it was travelling back in time in the 'wormhole' created by the pending apocalypse. It was my interpretation that only the engine travelled back in time, that each of the characters remained in the original timeline, only this time events occurred as they were supposed to have happenned originally, but for whatever reason didn't. Frank is a guide to Donnie, but donnie is only being used as a pawn to trigger off the events which will result in the engine falling from the plane.

And everybody learned a valuable lesson  :-D

In the directors commentary extended scene 4, RK says that Frank the Bunny is the symbolism for a divine intervention and says that is what the story is about, a divine intervention. He says that Frank the Bunny has obvious religious implications and was used to detour the imagination from a blunt connection to it.

When is the supposed "Directors Cut" of Donnie Darko going to be released? There is a theater nearby showing the film. I thought it strange  it was showing there, and wondered if it had come out already. I hadn't heard anything. Just curious.

The thing that has puzzled me most about this movie is how the hell did the water tentacle from The Abyss end up there? Did they get it on loan from James Cameron or something? Its as if the director said to his FX team, " OK, we need an effect here but dont really have any money. You guys have any ideas?". Then one came forward and said, " Bob can do the water tentacle from The Abyss".  Water tentacle it is then!

i would have preferred a giant rainbow slinky.

"i would have preferred a giant rainbow slinky."
Hahaha Pic.  :P

I thought this was a good editorial by Annie Frisbie.  I would write a synopsis but I think it's better in her words and seems to fit with the discussion.
Shit, I am not sure I can do this link thing.

http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=10_0_2_0

There is a new directors cut being released but they haven't said when.  Geez, why don't they hurry.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/newmarket/donnie_darko/

Quote from: londonThere is a new directors cut being released but they haven't said when.  Geez, why don't they hurry.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/newmarket/donnie_darko/

http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=6314