This article was nominated for deletion on February 7, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
Hi, I disagree with the sentence in the Plot section which states, "Kenneth says his mission is to go back to 2001 and prevent the death of his old girlfriend Belinda, who was killed when someone drove a car into her house." I don't think this is an accurate summary of the events, as in an earlier scene Kenneth makes clear to Darius that he doesn't want to alter events in the past – e.g. saving Belinda – even if it's "for the betterment of future society". Additionally, it's not explicitly said that he wants to "prevent" Belinda's death in this scene either, just that his "reason for going back is a girl". Therefore I believe this summary is jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
Furthermore, I don't think it's ever made clear that Belinda was killed at all. Duplass' performance in this scene suggests Kenneth is deliberately misconstruing the facts, possibly so his reason seems sadder, to match Darius' (and to hide that he's really going back because he still has a crush on Belinda). His performance in the scene near the end when Darius confronts him about the truth about Belinda supports this (his rationalisation that the mission must've been successful seems unconvincing to Darius and the audience). The fan theory that he actually saved Belinda the first time he time traveled can't be proven as we don't know what he did the first time. I believe Belinda's account of the events in the interview was the truth and the only truth: that it was only ever Kenneth that drove the car into her house, not "some jerk in a band", and that she did not ever die. Whether this can be proven or not, I think the ambiguity of this should be communicated more clearly in this synopsis. RhavinBanda ( talk) 14:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a discussion here about categorizing the film as science-fiction as well as comedy, but I believe it should. I mean, doing it spoils the ending, but that's not usually a concern in Wikipedia articles, whereas the ending is unambiguously stating that the time machine was real all along. Kumagoro-42 13:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Safety Not Guaranteed. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the original advertisement and the internet-meme, that inspired the film? Also, I believe, that the original author of the advertisement is in the film as a cameo; i.e. one of the people, who open their PO-box. If you want some sources, then here are some: /info/en/?search=Backwoods_Home_Magazine#%22Safety_Not_Guaranteed%22_classified_ad https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4872697/ https://www.backwoodshome.com/the-time-travel-ad/ -- Ælfric of Eynsham ( talk) 22:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on February 7, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
Hi, I disagree with the sentence in the Plot section which states, "Kenneth says his mission is to go back to 2001 and prevent the death of his old girlfriend Belinda, who was killed when someone drove a car into her house." I don't think this is an accurate summary of the events, as in an earlier scene Kenneth makes clear to Darius that he doesn't want to alter events in the past – e.g. saving Belinda – even if it's "for the betterment of future society". Additionally, it's not explicitly said that he wants to "prevent" Belinda's death in this scene either, just that his "reason for going back is a girl". Therefore I believe this summary is jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
Furthermore, I don't think it's ever made clear that Belinda was killed at all. Duplass' performance in this scene suggests Kenneth is deliberately misconstruing the facts, possibly so his reason seems sadder, to match Darius' (and to hide that he's really going back because he still has a crush on Belinda). His performance in the scene near the end when Darius confronts him about the truth about Belinda supports this (his rationalisation that the mission must've been successful seems unconvincing to Darius and the audience). The fan theory that he actually saved Belinda the first time he time traveled can't be proven as we don't know what he did the first time. I believe Belinda's account of the events in the interview was the truth and the only truth: that it was only ever Kenneth that drove the car into her house, not "some jerk in a band", and that she did not ever die. Whether this can be proven or not, I think the ambiguity of this should be communicated more clearly in this synopsis. RhavinBanda ( talk) 14:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a discussion here about categorizing the film as science-fiction as well as comedy, but I believe it should. I mean, doing it spoils the ending, but that's not usually a concern in Wikipedia articles, whereas the ending is unambiguously stating that the time machine was real all along. Kumagoro-42 13:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Safety Not Guaranteed. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the original advertisement and the internet-meme, that inspired the film? Also, I believe, that the original author of the advertisement is in the film as a cameo; i.e. one of the people, who open their PO-box. If you want some sources, then here are some: /info/en/?search=Backwoods_Home_Magazine#%22Safety_Not_Guaranteed%22_classified_ad https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4872697/ https://www.backwoodshome.com/the-time-travel-ad/ -- Ælfric of Eynsham ( talk) 22:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)