This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know there are all sorts of wonderful rules for Wikipedia articles, to insure objectivity, reliable, independent sources, etc., etc., etc., but it alarms me to see the big orange exclamation point and multiple warnings about content and format on probably the most useful, informative, and entertaining Wikipedia article I've ever read.
So what if "it contains a plot summary that is too long compared to the rest of the article"? The plot summary is brilliant, thorough, and more helpful than 90% of what's on Wikipedia today (July 18, 2009). I would hate to see any of it deleted just for the sake of following rules that may be more valuable in an article about physics or racism than about a popular movie.
I know that one reason this article is so good is that it's received a lot of editorial scrutiny in the past, but the warning about the too-long plot summary was just added this month. Please, guys, just don't be too hasty to fix something that may not need fixing, just because it doesn't obey all the rules and cite enough "sources." What sources are there anyway for a movie—reviews? Roger Ebert's opinions are still just opinions, not necessarily any more objective or valuable than mine or whoever contributed to the wonderfully L-O-N-G plot summary in this article.
By the way, I have personally contributed nothing to this article, and I read it today for the first time, so I have absolutely no vested interest in it at all, except as a reader who enjoyed and appreciated it very much. --Jim10701 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence from the first paragraph of the "Plot"-Section,as it very likely is vandalism.
"This is probaly the sexist movie ever i was so turned on when lola took a bath that was hot you know i don't like the word know when i explain things it should be just NO N,O " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.205.21.56 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In my edit of 2004-10-31, I removed the following:
Since Lola's encounters rarely involve a conscious choice, I felt the butterfly effect more accurately described what was happening. It's a bit sticky, since the first place the stories diverge is the stairwell. The first time, the dog scares Lola. The second time, the dog's owner chooses to trip Lola. The third time, Lola chooses to intimidate the dog first. Thoughts?
-- Ventura 16:24, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
I think that this article should talk about it as Chaos theory. When this movie came out (Before the movie The Butterfly Effect), I heard people refer to it as dealing with Chaos Theory, instead of calling it The Butterfly Effect. Saying that it deals with the Butterfly Effect makes it sound like it was influenced by the movie The Butterfly Effect instead of the other way around. -- Suso (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
...add the quotes from the beginning of the movie (one was by T.S. Eliot and the other was "Nach der spiel ist vor der spiel") to wikiquote?
I'm going to re-check but I seem to recall that this movie did not take place in Berlin but Cologne. I think it mentions it in the director's commentary. If someone else is sure, please edit. If not, sorry!
It's Berlin, the square through which she runs (the one that we see from above) contains a recognizable landmark in the last scene in which it appears. --Our Bold Hero 22:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Manni also mentions that his body will be thrown in the river Spree if he can't recover the money. This river runs right through Berlin.
Uh, yeah. It's Berlin. You know how I know? Because all the structures, streets, U-Bahn stations, etc. are HERE IN BERLIN. Travel here and see for yourself. Why would you need citations for this section?? 87.185.174.44 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the references section needs cleaning up. The Vertigo painting thing isn't so much a "rumor" as an anecdote the director tells on the commentary track (and so could probably be described more accurately as soon as someone verifies by watching the commentary). I also don't understand how the movie references the work of Wim Wenders, however similar the tone of his films might be. --Our Bold Hero 07:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't a 'References' section be a list of links to works cited in the article (see WP: Works Cited? Also, the current references section reads like a report someone wrote for an English (or German) class. Maybe someone could clean it up remembering the no-original-research policy. 68.33.74.123 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The referrences section strikes me as amazingly POV heavy. "She does a little better" Is an opinion, not a fact. Several times the wiki claims that something happened because of say Lola being needy. How do we know this was the writer's intention? To be honest the whole section seems like it was written by a single, very opinionated person. I'll see if I can clean it up but I've never seen the movie, and would feel horrible about simply deleting large portions of this section without such experiance. If someone who has seen the movie (perhaps heard commentary?) would inform me if I'm wrong I'd appreciate it. Thanks. GL12 08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence of the second paragraph struck me as stupid. I think it is offending to this film to say that it owes anything to video games. Search4Lancer 10:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you thinking of Majora’s mask? Because this film was a huge influence to the game -Aug, 23, 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:16D0:5410:5546:732C:A472:F7C7 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"He returns the phone card, but this time, unlike in the previous two sequences, he thanks her." That's not true; i've just watched the film, and he thanks her the first time as well.
"She hitches a ride in an ambulance, which is carrying a security guard from her father's bank, who has apparently suffered a heart attack. Lola says "I'll stay with him," and holds the man's hand, and moments later he starts to recover to a normal heart rate. Her puzzling statement is never explained in the film."
It's not stated explicitly, but isn't there some implication that the guard is Lola's real father? Notice how he says "You're finally here..." (or words to that effect) when he meets her at the bank, before looking shocked when he sees her face. His father-like treatment could also be seen as a manifestation of this.
This only ever implied (if that), anyway, but should it be put into the article? --Doug (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Loodog 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone tell me:
"In the second scenario, Lola does a little better. She still allows Manni to make her responsible for his mistakes, and again, he just waits passively at the phone booth for her to rescue him, but this time, she is much more assertive in dealing with her father. She robs his bank, holding a gun to his head! Then she escapes, despite the fact that the bank is surrounded by police. But just as she reaches Manni, a truck runs him over, and he ends up dead. But at least she's not dead!
In the third scenario, both Manni and Lola act more responsibly. Manni actually does something to help himself instead of waiting passively and childishly for Lola to rescue him: he tracks down the homeless guy who has the cash and takes it back. Lola, for her part, doesn't rely on Daddy this time, but instead goes into a casino and legally acquires the 100,000 marks, using her powerful trademark scream to force the roulette wheel to do her bidding. By the time she finds Manni, he has solved his own problem already. However the final scene leaves a question mark on their relationship. Lola is pensive after seeing him very pleased after handing the money over but will Manni continue down this path and risk his and Lola's lives again? The viewer is left with the question whether or not Lola will tell Manni what is in her bag.
At the beginning of the movie, Manni is childishly blaming Lola for his own mistake: "you weren't there with the moped, so I had to take a subway..." Lola tries to reason with him, but Manni is crying like a baby. Maybe that is why his name is Manni, "little man." She rescues him as a mother would rescue a child, at least in the first two scenarios.
In between the first and second scenarios, there's a "pillow talk" flashback, where Lola asks Manni if he really loves her, in an insecure and clingy way. This scene elucidates the nature of their relationship and explains why Lola felt she needed to rescue Manni: she is not very confident and feels unloveable, perhaps in part because of her distant and self-absorbed parents, so she will go to any lengths, even risking her life, for Manni. But between the second and third scenarios, in a similar "pillow talk" flashback, it is Manni who is the insecure one, worried about what Lola would do if he died: would she quickly get another boyfriend and forget him? She matter-of-factly ends this silly conversation by saying, "Manni, you're not dead yet." Lola is strengthening before our eyes, and in the third scenario, she does the right thing."
I would like to remove this.Loodog 20:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not revert large sections of text without discussion lest the article become the battlefield for an unproductive revert war.Loodog 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Anybody notice that when the woman converts to Christianity, she goes to a Church (Catholic?) and worships but, is later holding 'The Watchtower' and "Awake!' magazines, published by Jehovah's Witnesses?Abbott75 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Although the English subtitles have Lola saying "I'll stay with him," the actual German line is "Ich gehöre zu ihm," which translates as "I belong to him." Some take this to suggest that Schuster is Lola's biological father. She holds Schuster's hand, and moments later, he starts to recover to a normal heart rate.
Lola has no way of knowing if this is her real father. In this reality, she doesn't even know bank dad isn't her real father. Bank dad has no reason to lie when he says, "Your real dad died before you were born," and there are many other moments in this movie where complete strangers share profound moments that don't correspond to any relations. Even if this guess were warranted, it does not belong in the summary of the movie, especially in a way that makes it twice as long as the other realities.Loodog 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is another problem with the English subtitles. In German, he says "Der Kerl, der dich gezeugt hat, der hat deine Geburt schon gar nicht mehr mitgekriegt." Rough translation: "The guy that fathered you didn't stay (long enough) to see your birth/ was gone before you were born." He never says her father's dead. 80.136.126.154 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
But bear in mind that there seems to be some connection between the realities. In the first reality Lola doesn't know how to use a gun and Manni has to tell her how to switch the safety off, yet in the second reality when Lola holds her father at gunpoint, she knows about the saftey. I interpreted 'you are finally here' as meaning that Schuster may also be somehow conscious of the repeated realities. ChristineD 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this paragraph as I think the allusion, especially between Orpheus' music and Lola's voice, is extremely strained.
--Saforrest 09:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The first line of the article says:
Run Lola Run (original German title Lola rennt, which translates to Lola Runs) is a 1998 film.....
"Lola rennt" also translates to "Lola is running". Is there a reason for the translation given? If not I'll change it to:
Run Lola Run (original German title Lola rennt, which translates to Lola Runs or Lola is Running) is a 1998 film.....
--Bucephalus 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states: "Apart from the debt to Krzysztof Kies'lowski mentioned above, perhaps this film's most obvious visual references are..." but Kies'lowski is not mentioned above. Was something deleted?
Is it just a coincidents that you've got two red heads that can scream? Pocopocopocopoco 03:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that this is a bit random, but anyone else think the fact that lola misses the nuns on her third run goes hand in hand with a more favourable outcome (if thats what you could call it). I suppose its a kind of 'karma' thing, also the fact that oe person dies in each reality is implying there has to be a ba;ance, of course this is all OR but seems like it was deliberately there.
Image:RunLolaRun.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) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this article is titled as Run Lola Run instead of Lola rennt in English Wikipedia? I know this section of Wikipedia services the English-speaking public, but I can't help feeling that it would be more proper (and certainly more respectful to the creators) to place the article under the correct German title, with a redirect from Run Lola Run. The opening sentence could be altered slightly to something like:
"Lola rennt (English title Run Lola Run, more properly translated as Lola Runs or Lola Running) is a 1998 film..."
I've always felt that foreign language media, even if better known in a translated form, should be referred to by its original, and therefore "correct" title. Thoughts?
98.211.44.211 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone familiar with Berlin comment on the route Lola takes? Is it actually possible to run from her home to the supermarket in less than twenty minutes (including the time she spends at her father's bank), and would one pass through the locations seen in the film? DES (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Google maps is your friend.68.46.88.77 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I was told by my German Teacher that it is not possible to make the run in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.17.58 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Supposedly, the "Themes" section contains "original research." But with the exception of one or two small details, I didn't find anything I haven't read in a book or journal. However, finding the specific titles and page numbers would take me more time than I have right now. たろ人 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
All three times that Lola runs out of her apartment to begin her journey, her mother calls after her very quickly something which the English subtitles place as "Lola, are you going shopping? I need Shampoo." In the original German, it sounds to me like she says "Lola, gehst du einkaufen? Ich brauch' Shampus" Which would mean "I need champagne." This would tie in with what Frau Hansen tells Lola's father about his wife being "drunk day and night."
Can anyone with the movie handy check it out? Perhaps check with the German subtitles on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.98.161 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah- that was what happened actually- the yellow box is not asking for citations or references, it just said condense: did that offend aomeone? I had it down to about five lines and it was concise- feel free to compare, 'the yellow sign said' section is now no longer up either... this makes me feel small, I was trying to heklp, minimalism is an art.
The section with the "Themes" tagged as original research for over a year. I reverted a good-faith edit today which added more original research, too.
Are there any references forthcoming for this section? Otherwise I'm going to purge the things that are neither sourced nor factual.
Also, the article lists the shooting location for almost every scene, which seems somewhat over the top. Averell (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is VERY simple: the movie is all about Skepticism, a recognized philosopy. The key scene is the last scene: Her boyfriend asks Lola: "Whats in the bag?..."
I did not add this yet to the page, but an episode of Phineas and Ferb was titled "Run Candace Run", and does a kind of parody of "Run Lola Run". The song played during Candace's run is also a parody of the song that plays during Lola's run.
Sources: http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/Run,_Candace,_Run (episode) and http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/Run_Candace_Run_%28song%29 (song) Do what you will with this information. Azzychan (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Episode 12 of ER (season 15), the medical drama, uses the same structure as Lola, where our attractive lead character (Neela) experiences the same series of events with variations, leading to failure, failure, and finally, success, all in a hospital environment.
Varlaam (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
At an ongoing AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works set in a single day, I pointed out that this film is in Category:Time loop films. That is proper, IMO. It is the entirely most defining characteristic of this film! Or am I wrong in some technical, semantic way? Please discuss here, don't remove the category, which helps readers navigate between similar films. Perhaps some other term is technically better, I dunno, but let's not throw out what is working, without suitable replacement. --Doncram (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The current article states, jarringly to me, Lola garners 126,000 deutsche marks ("Having only 99 marks, she convinces the cashier to give her a 100 mark chip. Betting the chip on a roulette table, she wins two consecutive bets, raising 126,000 marks.") Where does that come from? I had the impression from the movie that she won a bit more than 100,000, which is the number she needed. In fact I thought I had it figured out once, and that in her second bet she would get just a little bit more than needed. [Yes, actually i think i am not alone as a viewer, figuring it out close enough, in my head, as the scene plays out: she wins 35x return, yay! 30x twice would not be enough, that would yield 900 x her initial bet of 100, so 90,000 total, not enough. Hmm, 35x twice yields more than 1,000x her initial bet, okay whew. Yay, she has enough going into the one last "game" before she gets ejected from the casino.] Mention of a different specific number, unless it is supported, is not cool.
Okay, the casino scene is online (in low-resolution critical commentary video at Run Lola Run: Casino Scene). After the first bet, the roulette table operator reports: "Three thousand, five hundred marks for 100 marks on 20." Then pushes.."Here you are...3,500". She pushes the 3,500 to add to the 100 she still has left sitting on 20, black. So she is getting 35 times return, or multiplying her initial stake by 36. Winning a second time should yield 100 * 36 * 36 = 129,600. What is the 126,000 number currently in the article? Or is there some sort of tax or something? (She does owe the cashier .80 marks, but there is no indication she paid that or tipped.) Or is there an error in the English language subtitle translation?
The only mentions I see in reviews of the movie are of 100,000 being the target, and her getting that, so I don't think the Wikipedia article should be inserting an overly specific number, particularly one that is wrong. --Doncram (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why the winnings total was removed instead of changed to the correct amount. From the first wager it's clear that it pays at 35 to 1. She initially bet 100 marks and won an additional 3,500 for a total of 3,600 marks. She then bets the 3,600 again, winning an additional 126,000 for a total of 129,600 marks. So she walked into the casino with 99.2 marks and walked out with 129,600 marks. The error was probably from someone forgetting to add back in the original wager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ra5ul (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the significance of the film, I would expect more content around the original storyline development and production of the film (ie. how it was written and funded). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.179.160.133 (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The article states: "The Lola character is often compared to the Lara Croft character of the 1996 video game Tomb Raider." But it doesn't explain why people make the comparison, making the statement fairly pointless. Is it because they have similar names? Probably not. I know I could check the references, but shouldn't the Wikipedia article itself be enough to at least get some idea of why people compare the two? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:573A:A3FE:6BA1:5D92 (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)