Talk:Knowing (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction B‑class

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Citations for use

~~Night at the museum~~

Slimmed-down star brings sci-fi chills to Melbourne

Geelong residents will star in Nicolas Cage movie

Nicolas's golden cage an empty shell

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Cinematographer covers Knowing in its April 2009 issue. I do not know if the article will be available online, so leaving a note here for myself and others to check for it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

An editor added a review by Roger Ebert to the "Reception" section, with which I have no problem. However, since this was the sole review added, I commented out Ebert's review temporarily until there is a better mix of reviews listed in this section. Ebert's review was probably one of the most glowing of the film, so the "Reception" section is better tempered by more moderate opinions. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the re-addition of Roger Ebert's review, which we can see is a very gracious review and contrary to the aggregate critical reception. Per WP:UNDUE, all viable viewpoints need to be evenly represented, so for Ebert's review to belong to the article, it needs to be accompanied by other credible reviews of differing opinions. Ebert's review was accompanied by one by a university student, and she is not a reliable source to cite about an opinion of the film. So I removed both reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added both pro and con critical comments so all viewpoints are represented. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) I am happy that someone was able to do this. If you do not mind, I will use {{cite news}} templates for the reviews in the article to make the presentation of the references consistent with the other ones. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to clean up with the new reviews; the quotation marks should be formatted per MOS:QUOTE#Quotation marks. This may require re-structuring some current quotes into fragmentary quotes and whole-sentence quotes. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Other Works

Knowing has many representations of the final day(s) somewhat predicted (but not so descriptivley) in the Bible. One may read in the Bible about the world being destroyed in the form of fire, and the religious yet scientific twist the world has put onto religion. There were many different representations, can you find them all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.33.50 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussion would better take place on a different forum than this talk page. The page is meant to be used to discuss improvements for the film article, but this discussion seems more "for fun" and speculative. No problem with that! :) Wikipedia just is not the place for that... a forum like the Knowing's message board at the Internet Movie Database would be better. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If some citation from a reliable source pops up that makes these comparisons, we can certainly review them, but not until then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Details in "Cast" section

The "Cast" section was expanded recently with details about the film's characters, and I removed the details because they are extraneous per WP:WAF. Film articles on Wikipedia are permitted "Plot" sections to give readers background information, but for the most part, articles should focus on real-world coverage. For "Cast" sections, more than one or two sentences about any given character is overly descriptive, and the identification of each actor and their role should have real-world coverage. For an example, see Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast. In the case of this film, I am not sure if there will be much coverage beyond Cage's and Byrne's characters, so I suggest keeping actors' bulleted items limited to brief descriptions of their characters. For example, "Rose Byrne as Diana Wayland: Daughter of Lucinda Embry and mother of Abby Wayland" is sufficient. Any important involvement on the character's part should be conveyed in the "Plot" section, and it is. I wanted to clarify this removal and hope that it makes sense for everyone. We have links several threads above so the article can continue to grow with real-world coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Callum?

whose callumn? second paragraph makes reference. this film contains no-one called callumn - sorry cant use wikipedia formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.220.19 (talk • contribs)

It was a bit of vandalism. Thanks for spotting it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot re-write

Not a major cleanup or anything, but I did try to re-word the plot summary a little as a few things bothered me. I pretty much tried to clarify a few loose ends (why he wanted to go to the mobile home at the end why Diana came back to John, etc.), all while trimming out a few non-essential bits in order to keep the section around 700 words. The previous edits also listed the Cage character as "Jon", being short for Jonathan, but every article on the film (and, ugh, imdb) lists him as John, so I changed it to this. Also, the four mystery people are listed in the credits as "The Strangers", so I changed all mentions of them to this, while also mentioning that their "whispers" are heard, to make for an easier read.

I also tried to re-word the info regarding the climax of the film as vague (in a sense, neutral) as possible; you know, the whole "are they aliens or are they angels, or are they one meant to represent the other?" thing. Rather than letting a debate erupt, I did this because I read an article where Roger Ebert quoted the director, Alex Proyas, and Juliet Snowden, one of the screenwriters. Proyas stated that he had no opinion on the matter, and Snowden vowed to never tell. Essentially, it's all intended to be open to interpretation, at least in the eyes of the filmmakers. On the other hand, I did add a sentence about the Ezekiel drawing they find in the mobile home (and if I'm not mistaken, Abby later makes a similar drawing), because I did think it was an important part of the film.

Maybe there will be an "interpretation"-ish section on this article one day (hopefully with legitimate sources, and not posing as a discussion, of course), so this re-write isn't intended to be the end-all and say-all, just a slight fix of what was already here. I may have made a few mistakes in regard to who did what and what actually happened (it's been a few weeks since I saw it), so of course please correct whatever mistakes there might be. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cast" section

This is from my talk page, and I thought it'd be best if I also posted it here (first entry was unsigned)

John's full name is Jonathan as his father called him during their phone call. Dr. Phil Beckman's full name is Phillip since "Phil" is usually a short of that name. Also, Lara Robinson also play a Young Diana Wayland on Lucinda's and Diana's picture on Lucinda's mobile home.

If the father did indeed call him that, then putting "Jonathan" on there is fine. The other stuff, though, is original research (we can't just assume his full name is Philip, unless it is indeed portrayed as such somewhere in the film), and Lara is not credited with playing young Diana anywhere else on the web (not that I can find). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven soundtrack

If I remember correctly, there was a piece of classical music that appeared frequently in the film. I think it was Beethoven's 7th symphony, this should be mentioned in the article, despite most of the score for the film being composed by Marco Beltrami. Thanks, 86.132.37.52 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]