Donnie Darko

Forum

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 28
sausage fingers,

if u already think you know EVERYTHING about the movie then why are you still visiting this site??

>>By fantasea   (Sunday, 13 Jul 2003 06:19)



How can you tell that Frank is Elizabeth's boyfriend?

>>By The Cutests Boy In The Class   (Sunday, 13 Jul 2003 10:48)



In the beganning the mom is reading a Stephen King book. The book she was reading had a clown in it. Much like the one Frank was with when he killed Gretchen. Just a thought.

>>By Brendan Sweeney   (Monday, 14 Jul 2003 03:04)



As far as Frank being Elizabeht's boyfriend, I remember a few brief indirect mentioned. The note on Donnie's refridgerator "Frank was here, went to get beer", and I'm sure there were a couple of other mentions of Frank, too. Ofcourse, to be sure you should listen to the commentary, as they talk about it in there.

>>By Mandelbrotjulia   (Monday, 14 Jul 2003 08:11)



Saw the film for the first time a couple of days ago, watched the commentary on DVD, 'completed' the web-site, and just read the first seven pages of this forum (before my head started to spin!) and just gotta say think it's a wicked movie and everything, refreshing, original, thought-provoking but ultimately gotta agree with 'diadochi' on previous page - there's no point trying to find concrete answers or explanations in the story cause it's deliberately made to be vague and open to many different interpretations and thus utimately serving in it's purpose as just being a complete headfcuk of a movie! In a way, it makes it quite frustrating that there's nio definite answers to the plot and as to why what happens does (despite all the supposed clues that are scattered throughout the movie, and with the web-site etc) but at the end of the day that's what ultimately makes it such great and different film and why everybody here has seen it countless times trying to work it out and been talking about it for god knows how so long. I just think that the director approached this project with a deliberate aim of making a movie that's main function (or one of it's main functions) was to make you think and try to work out a puzzle - which ultimately cannot be conclusively solved - rather than simply entertain, which is quite an innovative way to approach a movie (as opposed to something like The Usual Suspects or even Fight Club where there is also a kind of puzzle but ultimately there is an interpretation and an 'answer' in the director's head). Although there are several threads throughout the movie - in fact, nearly every scene and line in the film can be seen as relating to something else - these are ultimately all 'deliberate coincidences' (Cellar Door etc) sprayed out by the director and he's quite happy to sit back and let the conspiracy theorists get to work. Of course, this makes it sound a lot easier than it is - there's no doubt that it's a clever film but it's cleverness lies more in the fact it sets up all these clues and coincidences so that it fools you into thinking that there's an answer that can be worked out when ultimately there's just too many contradictions and unexplained events for this to be the case. I mean, if I remember correctly, isn't teh director on eof the guys talking on the commentary and it's quite apparent he's not really sure why certain things happen when they do and he states he's quite happy for people to try work it out for themselves and come to their own conclusions (has anybody heard him talk about the car flying up into the sky at the end of the original scipt, for example?). In a way, this pisses me off a bit cause I think it's a bit lazy but like I said it's what makes it so original and at the end of the day can't deny the fact that I really enjoyed it (def a Top 10 film) and I'lI certainly be recommending it to anyone else who hasn't seen it yet.

And I know I'm just contradicting myself but while i'm here thought I might as well get in the swing of things... may be a silly question but one I don't think I've seen before on the forum (or at least not on the first seven pages).... why exactly does Donnie take the supposedly dead Gretcha with him into the car and up on to the cliff? As I was watching it for the first time, my initial supposition was that he was going to save her in some way, flying through time or whatever, but that doesn't appear to be the case as it's only the engine that goes back - or as some people suggest, Donnie himself. Maybe he just didn't want to leave her body on the dirty floor?

Any answers would be appreciaited - but don't forget, YOU'RE ALL WRONG!

Or are you?

>>By jeff   (Monday, 14 Jul 2003 23:00)



Since you have all the answers Sausage Fingers... how does Donnies mom being in the plane or not, matter?! The plane will actually take off, no matter what Donnie has done...


stupid smartass...



(wonder if this forum still is visited..)

>>By Doggie   (Monday, 14 Jul 2003 23:02)



wow... yeah, it's still visited! Donnie Darko arguments.. I don't think I've seen this yet... lol!

>>By darks_fear   (Tuesday, 15 Jul 2003 05:06)



While I love the film, and I after reading most of the posts on this board, I still think the film is flawed. You shouldnt have to watch extras on the DVD or pages from a book on the website in order to understand the films main concepts, the movie should stand alone and communicate these ideas by itself. I would rather have sought to understand the film by looking at what was in the 2 hours or so that was actually shown in the theater, rather than have to read addons elsewhere. Unless jeff is right and there are no answers.

>>By The Cutest Boy In The Class   (Tuesday, 15 Jul 2003 13:54)



Donnie says the words "change things" at least twice in odd places in the movie. The words don't seem to fit the surrounding dialog, he just says them. Once is in the classroom when Drew Barrymore asks him is opinion on the book. The other is when he's talking to Gretchen for the first time and is telling her how he wants to be a painter and a writer. He ends both of his lines in these two points with "change things". Anyone got any idea why?

>>By Daniel   (Tuesday, 15 Jul 2003 21:33)



You know what? To those of you who complain that the movie is too complex or confusing or cerebral or not packaged neatly into a couple of hours (minus the DVD extras and Website), why don't you go watch one of the other 10 billion movies that are out there instead. Enjoy them. This movie was just not made for you.

>>By Mandelbrotjulia   (Wednesday, 16 Jul 2003 02:36)



you couldn't tell by the movie that frank was elizabeth's boyfriend...the director said it in the commentary on the dvd.

>>By maladroit   (Wednesday, 16 Jul 2003 05:50)



In the scene after the school is flooded and donnie is talking to gretchen he says, "I'm glad the school was flooded", "Why?", "Cuz you and I never had this converstaion". He doesn't say "Cuz you and I never would had have this conversation".

>>By indigo   (Wednesday, 16 Jul 2003 10:34)



The rift in the 4th dimension is first evidence that there is a tangent universe, as frank contacts donnie. It is the first sign, but you cannot say for sure how long they have been in the tangent universe. The artifact is another sign that they are in a tangent universe. Since the book only mentions two universes, the primary and tangent, one has to assume that the engine came from the primary universe. Since the plane that the engine came from cannot be located in the tangent universe further supports that it must have came from the primary. Now that we established where the engine came from donnie much guide it back to the primary universe using the aid of the manpiulated dead. When he sends the primary universe back to the primary universe the rift has been mended, the artifact is in its correct place. I have a simple question.

1) Isn't the artifact he wants to guide back the one that was taken from the FAA and not a new engine in the tangent universe?
The new engine would be part of the tangent universe and if he sent that back to the primary universe his job wouldn't be completed because the artifact was never guided back?

>>By indigo   (Wednesday, 16 Jul 2003 11:01)



somethin i dont understand is the very end of the movie. i dont know how in the beginnin donnie leaves with the rabbit and doesnt die because he is with the rabbit. but at the end the plane engine thing goes through the worm hole and goes back into time and kills him. wouldnt donnie be out of the room and with the rabbit?

>>By jjj   (Friday, 18 Jul 2003 07:21)



jjjj

>>By jjj   (Friday, 18 Jul 2003 07:22)



I think that the whole movie is what takes place in the very moment of Donnies death. It was his last dream, which he had only too comfort him in death. Since he was apparently not ready too die. Young, inexperienced. Needed a girlfriend....needed drama, so his own mind gave it to him in his last moment. I think something similar happens with most peoples deaths.

>>By Kenny   (Saturday, 19 Jul 2003 03:32)



If you notice in between scenes sometimes it shows things in fast motion..and sometimes in slow. I think this is a hint to the idea that time is relivent...Plus all of the time travel stuff. 1 moment in death could last YOU 28days. :)

>>By Kenny   (Saturday, 19 Jul 2003 03:35)



That's a good point about the slowing down and speeding up of time in the movie. There could be more to it then just photographic creativity.

I also never considered that the whole thing could have just been a dream...it's astounding how many ways one can interpret this movie.

>>By Mandelbrotjulia   (Saturday, 19 Jul 2003 07:40)



also where does the beginning of the movie deal in. it looks like the same place he was when he drove the car at the end. and i thought that the first time he saw frank was when he left that night and woke up on the golf course. but how did he wake up on the road at the beginning?

>>By jjj   (Saturday, 19 Jul 2003 07:48)



I'm confused with the time travel idea presented in the film. Did the rabbit guy time travel or simply die? A void seperated Donnie and him, which leads me to believe he was in some alternate dimension. If the rabbit guy did time travel was he visited by himself from the future? Near the end he is drawing up his costume, but was he drawing himself from the future to prepare for the future? Wow my head i spinning better stop.

>>By weak sauce   (Saturday, 19 Jul 2003 12:51)



I thought this film was very good, but many of you who are shooting down other peoples' theories or opinions on what it is about by referencing what you *think* is the *real* explanation just because it was posted on the website, are entirely misguided.... The website explanations are only ONE interpretation, and i STRONGLY suspect they are deliberately a MISLEADING interpretation... all of the talk of "primary universe" and "tangent universe" or "receiver" or "artifacts" seems to be entirely off-base... and don't forget that the source of these "clues" that you all are crediting as being credible is a book on time travel by an woman we do not know is credible!! (and i'll add that the entire "book" is only a few paragraphs in any event...... The website seems to have been created simply as a crutch for people who can't think for themselves about what a work of art which is deliberately vague "means." The movie is open to multiple interpretations, and you can see in it whatever you really want. You will see different "meaning" depending on how you "read" it.. By reading and trusting the website, and then going back and viewing the film, you end up simply shading your "read", giving yourself additional ideas with which you can build theories on what the film could mean.... But the point remains, if you act as if the website information is GOSPEL, you will be missing and shutting yourself out of multiple other interpretations of which you may not have thought yet..... That is what abstract art is all about. That is what this movie is. Enjoy it and draw your own conclusions, and try to remain open-minded, even after listening to the largely irrelevant website propaganda

Luke

>>By Luke   (Sunday, 20 Jul 2003 08:48)



I love the movie but there's one part I don't understand... it's near the end of the movie, Donnie's girlfriend is dead, and he has the keys to the car. This is where I have a problem, why didn't he take the porche, instead of the stationwagon? Seriously, if he knew that he was going to die, then why didn't he take it?

>>By - SoNiC   (Sunday, 20 Jul 2003 09:01)



Jeff,
Donnie always seemed to get some action from Gretchen in times of tragedy. Death is the ultimate tragedy. Haha ;)

>>By maladroit   (Monday, 21 Jul 2003 06:37)



Bishop said on page 4 <<Ok, so the main thing that we all don't agree on is how the 4th dimensional rift occured.

Was it created by god? Was it created by Frank? Was it created by Donnie? Was it random?

I just can't buy the fact that god created the rift. WHY would he do something that could be catastrophic to the universe just so he can guide a mortal to sacrifice himself to fix it? What would that teach anyone? Donnie didn't benifit from it, obviously, cause hes dead. No one else knows that Donnie sacrificed himself to save the universe. All they know is some unidentifiable engine fell on Donnie and killed him. His parents aren't even told anything, so nothing is solved.

I just don't think that god would create something to destroy everything, just to kill someone to fix it. That just doesn't make sense to me.


Well, my response to this, is remember during class, the short story that they read is "The Destructors" and donnie says destruction is a form of creation, and they (the kids) just wanted to see what it's like to tear the world apart. this is in relation to the belief that god controls all, creation, destruction, etc. i think that all things follow a short path. creation, existance, destruction. all that is created, is destined to be destroyed.

i have a lot more that i could say about this movie, but FRANKly, it's 4 am, and i'm tired. if anyone cares to question, or respond, maybe i'll write again

and perhaps i should finish reading all the pages, and my appologies to everyone if what i have just said, was already covered in previous pages

>>By i don't know everthing, but i know enough   (Monday, 21 Jul 2003 12:56)



"I just don't think that god would create something to destroy everything, just to kill someone to fix it. That just doesn't make sense to me."

Heh, you just described the philosophy behind Christianity.

>>By Mandelbrotjulia   (Tuesday, 22 Jul 2003 05:16)



well, personally, i don't believe that. but i mean, i think that in relation to the movie, Richard Kelly is god. i mean, where else in the real world can one play god, but in his own mind and creative works. so why not. no one knows who or what caused the rift in the 4th dimension. be it god, some random occurance, or just because Kelly wrote it into the story. and along with that, he adds the scene about the destructors, and as i quoted previously, just wants to see what it would be like to tear the world apart. so why not. it's his story, his created world, so good for him. growing up with a somewhat christian upbringing, i have always heard "god works in mysterious ways." well, Richard Kelly, i thank you for creating this movie that has led to many theories, explainations, and yet, is still not completely solved. thank you for the mysterious ways of donnie darko

>>By i don't know everthing, but i know enough   (Tuesday, 22 Jul 2003 09:26)



Hi all,

I have not had time to read all one bazillion pages of this discussion, so forgive me for retread.

1. I agree with the poster that suggested that Frank (the b.f./hooligan, not the rabbit) had some knowledge of the alternate future, hence is distress during the ending scenes. Question: assuming everyone remembers the movie theater scene, in which Frank says he is called that because his father was and his father before him--anyone think that this means Frank of the future (son of a son of a son) was trapped in an endless time loop, trying to prevent the murder of Donnie's girlfriend over and over?

2. RE: Deus Ex Machina: this actually refers to a god (deus) that was represented by a big facsimile of such rolled onto stage (machina) that in either Greek or Roman theater was employed to wrap everything up at the end of a play that was sort of petering out, or had no real point. So, Deus Ex Machina is used to mean some incredibly contrived-sounding yet true intervention by a completely unexpected event, unrelated to the narrative up to that point.

>>By Gwendo   (Tuesday, 22 Jul 2003 18:48)



i guess no one really talks on here all that much anymore. sad. well, hope to start hearing from more people.

>>By i don't know everthing, but i know enough   (Wednesday, 23 Jul 2003 22:08)



Im sure someone has already brought this up, given the popularity of this movie, but, my opinion is that frank is the main character in this movie, and the whole thing about donnie being the chosen one to end the tangent universe is just a diversion because it is frank who is instigating the whole thing.

>>By man_made_protest   (Friday, 25 Jul 2003 16:33)



The movie is not about Frank, because Frank is just a meesenger. In th end, Donnie has the Choice to stay in bed or to get out.

>>By ssd   (Sunday, 27 Jul 2003 09:34)



Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 28
The discussion board is currently closed.