Talk:Dark Side of the Moon (2002 film)

Tricks section

The stuff about Christine being tricked seems a bit unlikely. Googling her quote didn't get any hits apart from wikipedia. Any thoughts? Andjam 22:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I removed the section as we have no reference. --Gosub 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Section in question:

Christiane Kubrick said in a 2005 interview in Australia, when asked about how "Dark Side of The Moon" came about: "We were tricked. Pure and simple. We should have been more alert, but at the time... you don't think of these sort of things." She seemed to regret having any involvement in the film mainly because what she said was edited and used out of context. The idea of suing the film makers came up but was quickly extinguished. "That's what they would want," she said.

Hi, it was myself who added that section and the quote itself. The interview was held at the ACMI (Australian Center of the Moving Image) in Melbourne, Australia as part of their Kubrick retrospective. I was in the audience for that interview and can swear on a stack of Bibles that the information posted was accurate. However, I do not know if the interview was recorded in any fashion by the Center, so I'm not sure if it can be backed up, but there was a number of people there who heard her say this. Gohst 03:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Having viewed this film many times (6?) I did not clearly gleen any direct quotes from the credits at the end of the film that gave it away as a ruse but instead gave me the impression that the drunken sots were too chummy with the camera people. Quotes of the exact phrases that give the "mocumentary" away are in order. This whole film reeks of damage control as video of the press conference where Armstrong seems puzzeled to be asked about seeing stars and then appears to say he "didn't remember seeing stars" and looks at his colleges for confermantion. If you have studied the topic you have seen the clip. The film does serve, deliberatly or not to deligitimise the valid questions about everything from operation paper clip to the current "office of strategic influence" those relivant sentiments are not scratched at all.user

LOL — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the Vietnamese villagers really did give the dead body of the CIA operative to their children to play with, just as the subtitles suggested. Nina 124.170.229.142 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope this section is still alive. The discussion regarding doubts re. tricks appears almost surrealistic when the quoted sources themselves confirm it. In the first link "Entretien avec William Karel" , the director himself says very clearly that they were not informed of the actual purpose of the interview:

"Comment avez-vous procédé avec les protagonistes de votre film ? Comment les avez-vous convaincus d’entrer dans le jeu ?

Aucun n’est entré dans le jeu ! L’idée était de détourner des entretiens, et nous n’avons mis aucun des témoins dans la confidence, ni les gens de la NASA, ni Aldrin, ni la femme de Kubrick, ni le frère de celle-ci. Il y a juste sept comédiens à qui on a donné un texte et qui jouent certains témoins. Les images des conseillers de Nixon proviennent du film les Hommes de la Maison-Blanche. En détournant leurs témoignages, il suffisait d’avoir un “faux” témoin, en l’occurrence la secrétaire de Nixon, pour faire le lien et rendre l’histoire crédible. Aux “vrais” témoins, nous disions que nous faisions un film sur Kubrick, sur son film, sur la Lune ou sur la NASA, et nous leur posions des questions un peu vagues… "

Which means in English:

"None [of the protagonists] played the game! The idea was to twist interviews, and we didn't bring any witness into the secret, be it the NASA people, or Aldrin, or Kubrick's wife, or her brother. There are just seven actors, to whom we gave a text and who play some witnesses. [...] We told the "real" witnesses that we were making a film about Kubrick, his film, the moon or NASA, and we asked them fairly vague questions..."

This leaves no trace of doubt that these people were tricked. It may be due to not reading French that nobody seems to have noticed it before. Regardless, the present form of the paragraph, stating that some witnesses other than the actors were reading scripted lines is clearly in error and needs to be corrected.Jlbruyelle (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Documentary or mockumentary?

On October 28, 2009, someone with the IP address of 195.132.20.5 decided to change "mockumentary" to "documentary". I believe that mockumentary is more appropriate, especially in view of the fact that this film is, quite possibly, the epitomy of what a mockumentary actually is. I am not arguing here whether Neil Armstrong actually did or did not walk on the moon. What I am saying, though, is that the filmmaker obviously intended this to be a mockumentary. I will nevertheless wait a day or two before reinstating the original term to allow the anonymous editor to express his view, in case he had a valid reason to edit the page as he did. — Oclupak (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and nobody has come forward, so I changed it back. Captain Chaos (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly not a documentary. Changed back to mockumentary.Catiline63 (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to pint out that the film is at no time presented as mocumentary and is not the only place where the information provided has been aired. Did the film makers say this a a mocumentray, none of this is true. I would like to say that as someone not decided one way or another, that, by saying mockumentary so boldly you actually fictionalise what is well known arguement.

This sort of degredation of well presented material so wrong and helps to kill debate. It is similar in its methods to the criticism given to 911 conspiracy theorests and kills well reasond arguement and debate leaving us in a world where possible injustice can go unanswered.

Remove the word, it is not required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.222.91 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I have to agree with the above commenter in one sense and that is the fact that this movie was even mmade was to help deflect the coming storm of world wwide condemnation of NASA. If the Kubrick truths of aiding the moon landing declarations of NASA by making films and still photos for NASA ever comes to Light there will be a huge storm. The movie THE SHINING is reviewed by Researcher Jay Weidner and shows clear clues that the moviemaker Kubrick desperately wanted the world to know the truth and so he hid information about Apollo 11 and the fake moon films and pic in the movie...Look for the clues Weidner has Brilliantly uncovered and marvel at the pure genius of Stanley Kubrick all over again. and dont forget to call for criminal investigations of NASA managers from the moon landing era in the USA and any at NASA who have aided the cover up of the truth !Blondeignore (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so this discussion, by being unanswered, stirs up continued senseless discussion:

The film IS a mockumentary.

The joke is on the likes of "Researcher Jay Weidner" and apparently on the commentators, above. If anyone takes an interview with "Astronaut David Bowman" seriously or is not laughing at the subtitled line, "McDonald's wrappers everywhere!" they have missed the point, missed the joke, and really do not want their name attached to further comments in this section.--cregil (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Characters (new section)

Added "Characters" section and list to the article.

Certainly helpful in dismissing the argument that this is something other than a mockumentary is the list of character names and of actors playing the parts-- derived from the listing at the end of the film. Information about the source of the character names has been provided when applicable.

That the credits are rarely found on Internet versions of the film may be a cause of some of the confusion. One might reasonably suspect that the credits were edited out from versions used on conspiracy sites by those with an intent to deceive.--cregil (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception section

This section implied that the moon landing happened on 27th July. It was actually on July 21st, so I edited out the sentence that was in error.Jlbruyelle (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See Also section

I don't see any relation between "Dark side of the moon" and "World War III" that appears in the links. I reckon it's a mistake and the link should be removed?

It was a reference to World War III (film), also a mockumentary and which also used a mix of real persons but out of context events and actors. I do not know of its addition or deletion to the "See Also" section adds to the article's usefulness.--cregil (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Giveaways section

(***How is this not possible? Nixon won in November 1968, just months after the release of 2001. Nixon could have seen the movie and incorporated aspects of 2001 into his presidency. The master film reel of 2001 still exists much like the master recordings of all the pop stars. When Madonna releases a song, the real original master recording exists even today. So why can't someone in 2013 use film footage from 2001 again?***)

What the film says is not that Nixon used footage from 2001 - which would have been possible but would not account for the different spacecraft, spacesuits and moonscape. What the film says is that Nixon sent a CIA crew to the set of 2001 while it was being shot, which is simply impossible for the reason given in the article. Jlbruyelle (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dark Side of the Moon (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.grimme-institut.de/scripts/preis/agp_2003/scripts/beitr_kubrick.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The altenative link provided by Cyberbot II pointed to a dead page. I provided the link to another archive page giving the same information.Jlbruyelle (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dark Side of the Moon (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/20151129224805/http://www.cosmos-club.org/journals/1998/harford.html to http://www.cosmos-club.org/journals/1998/harford.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dark Side of the Moon (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/20160304203730/http://www.grimme-institut.de/_old_scripts/preis/preistraeger/pt_2003.html to http://www.grimme-institut.de/_old_scripts/preis/preistraeger/pt_2003.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402150424/http://www.forums.camera-info.com/contaxinfo/pdf_files/When_is_it_advisable_Zeiss_1979.pdf to http://www.forums.camera-info.com/contaxinfo/pdf_files/When_is_it_advisable_Zeiss_1979.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)