Talk:Knowing (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations for use[edit]

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]
Update: Article is not available online, but I can access the article through my university database. If anyone pursues improvement of this article, contact me on my user talk page, and I'll help out. Here's the full citation: Gray, Simon (2009). "Sum of All Fears". American Cinematographer. 90 (4): pp. 44–8, 50, 52–3. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reception[edit]

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[edit]

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]
I referenced Ezekiel's "wheels within wheels" imagery, a plot-point in the trailer & when the Strangers' craft arrives, although that portion of Ezekiel isn't referencing "end-times," just his attempt to communicate what he was seeing/experiencing. LynnMaudlin (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just watched the DVD a second time, the story seems a convenient combination of the books 'Forge of God' by Greg Bear and 'Sunstorm' by Baxter and Clark. Simply an opinion, anyone else read both books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.131.20 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Details in "Cast" section[edit]

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?[edit]

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]
Caleb: Chandler Canterbury as Caleb Koestler; Joshua Long as Young Caleb. -- Was that it? -- AstroU (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot re-write[edit]

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]

I don't think Abby did later her own Ezekiel-drawing, she just painted one section of the black and white drawing and showed it to John stating: "look, it's the sun!". --77.4.88.32 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that D.G. Maloney is listed in the credits as "The Stranger" and Joel Bow, Maximillian Paul, and Karen Hadfield are listed as "Strangers". But Caleb calls them "The Whisperers" when his father asks who is telling him things. Sheherazahde (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cast" section[edit]

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)[reply]


Beethoven soundtrack[edit]

If I remember correctly, there was a piece of classical music that appeared frequently in the film. I think it was Beethoven symphony 7, 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]

That piece was indeed in the film, but I can't find a source at the moment apart from myself. Alan16 talk 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that tune at once. I've heard some mentions to the number 7's Allegretto as being a "funeral march". Even if it isn't true, I quite agree that the whole piece sounds as though it were. In the film, seconds before the end, the Allegretto points the chaos within the scene. I mean, it was placed as a funeral march.Biomus29 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was also used for Zardoz for similar effect. DiverScout (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 years late, but just wanted to point out that it is not the same version of the symphony that most of us know. The version used in The Knowing has been sped up and is performed by the Sydney Scoring Orchestra. --86.60.203.164 (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Agnostic" or Atheist?[edit]

In the final paragraph of the plot section of the article, Cage's character is described "While he had previously been an agnostic, John tells...". Having seen the film, I would argue that Cage's character is clearly an atheist as opposed to an agnostic. He became estranged from his father over it, which suggests someone who did not believe, as opposed to someone who wasn't sure. After a quick search on Google, I can't find any sources which really lean either way, but I found quite a few who offered the opinion that Cage's character resorted to religion in the end because there was nothing else left.

Also of note is that agnosticism is not actually a religous declaration as you can get atheist/theistic agnostics.

It probably isn't all that important, but I'd like some other opinions on it before I make possible changes as the subject is always a disagreeable area. Thanks. Alan16 talk 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the film and am trying to avoid actually understanding what you just said, but if there is a difference over religious background or lack thereof, it's best to posit the issue as ambiguous. (For example, if two editors disagree about the model of a gun used in a film, just call it a gun, period.) Any way to accomplish that here so we don't have to be too interpretative of a primary source? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and simplify what I said. The article calls Cage's character an agnostic. I have two problems with that. (1) He opposes the idea of a God and is therefore an atheist. (2) Agnosticism is not a declaration of religious beliefs - it merely states that one does not have any definite proof. That is why you get agnostic theists and atheistic thiests. Alan16 talk 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Atheist" sounds right, then. (You could use "nonbeliever", too, if you want to avoid terminology.) The "Plot" section has been frequently bombarded by IP edits, so I'm sure you can be bold in making the change and not be challenged. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. With respect Alan16, you are using your interpretations and definitions of what constitutes an atheist to interpret that John is one. That actually constitutes synthesis. I am sure that citable references of this categorization can be found in a review somewhere. Anywhere where religious faith comes into play in a film, there is almost certainly someone from a faith-based site willing to pipe up on the topic. Unless we have that, I think we tread thin ice adding it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne, I think what you are saying is generally correct, but one of my main points is that we are using wrong language when we describe John as an agnostic in relation to his religious beliefs or lack thereof. Agnostic is not, and has never been, a statement of religious beliefs. It is merely the statement that one has no proof. It is not saying no-belief. It is saying they have no proof either way. If they have no proof and don't believe then they are atheistic agnostics. And the same for theistic. By using agnostic to represent a religious belief in this article, we are providing inaccurate knowledge - and it matters not whether he is an atheist or a theist, agnostic is not a statement of religious beliefs. Also, by stating it as religious beliefs, it isn't just wrong, it is contrary to other Wikipedia articles. Alan16 talk 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's back up. What did Cage's character say in the film that reflected his beliefs or lack thereof? Perhaps we can paraphrase it in summary form instead of debating about word usage in regard to atheism or agnosticism. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I just saw Arcayne's edit do this, and I am fine with this amendment. Alan, does that suffice? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All you are told in the film is that Cage was estranged from his father because he did not believe in God (his father is a priest or minister). His sister also tells him that she'll pray for him and he responds along the lines of "I'd rather you didn't". The edits are good. Thanks Alan16 talk 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's an Atheist. In the movie the character was teaching to his class determinism vs. randomness, and gave a flippant answer to a student as to what he believed; random. Atheists believe in pure randomness without an ounce of determinism, even being stubborn enough to not believe in the possibility of extra terrestrial life. Notice how shocked he was at the end to see the ET's. Although someone should mention that General Relativity (almighty science) is determinism if every particle has it's own world line that means each world-line is already determined otherwise G.R. doesn't work. Anyone want to debate that, c'mon, come and get some...The symbolism at the very end disappointingly dumb and blunt though, hits you over the head like a sledgehammer and that's bad for sci-fi. Like the lone tree symbolizing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the 2 rabbits symbolizing the 2 kids are going to breed like rabbits.98.165.6.225 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with the idea that 'atheists believe in pure randomness without...determinism'. Indeed, the conflation between determinism and teleology was one part of the film that vexed me. Atheists can be determinists or indeterminists. And purpose/teleology is not really an issue. Determinism is just focusing on effects being a causal chain - which can be undirected natural as much as directed supernatural (and one is readily rejected as a hypothesis). And the same goes for the alien comment - I assume the individual above doesn't know that much about atheists. Cheers. 86.142.23.102 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it clear ten minutes into the film that he is, in fact, agnostic? Here:

John: Caleb, when I said it was just us out there, you know I was talking about space, right? I didn't mean Heaven or anything. I'm sure wherever Mom is...

Caleb: Dad, you don't even believe in Heaven.

John: I never said that, Caleb. I just said we can't know for sure, that's all. If you want to believe you go ahead and believe.

What I don't understand is why the person who started this discussion (Alan16) is questioning whether John is agnostic or atheistic, despite the fact that he seems to understand that it's possible to be both. In his first paragraph he says John is "clearly and atheist as opposed to an agnostic", yet in the next paragraph affirms that "agnosticism is not actually a religous declaration as you can get atheist/theistic agnostics". If that is the case, then why do you say he's an atheist as opposed to an agnostic? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call him both? King nothing 2 (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film is called "Knowing" because it is about faith and skepticism. The conversation you posted here occurs at the beginning of the film. Later on John says because of his wife's death the year before he stopped believing it was possible to know what was going to happen, that life is just a string of accidents and mistakes. But the fact of these true predictions challenges his doubt. He never says why he has stopped talking to his father. He even says it has been so long that he has forgotten why. He never declares any position on the existence or non-existence of god. I think it is misleading to say that his character is an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Theist, or a lapsed Christian. The point of the movie is that he is someone who has doubts that life has any meaning. Sheherazahde (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're attaching way too many "beliefs" to Atheists. Atheists do not believe in a deity. Period. You're trying to define them, or label others with certain beliefs as atheist or whatever, but it's incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to discuss this further. The discussion wrapped up amicably last April. Let's move on, shall we? —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Clearly there is a need, as I just needed to discuss it. However, I do not see a need to discuss whether or not it needs to be discussed. Why add superfluous snipes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I sounded snippy. The discussion was not just discussing the point in abstract, but how it should be explained in the article body. We came up with an approach to make it ambiguous, and the matter was closed. Weighing in a discussion a month after it concluded isn't very useful, that's all. It helps to start a separate discussion, and if you want to, refer to this previous discussion. However, discussion topics should be intended to improve the article, per the talk page guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country of Origin[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this movie was produced by American companies was it not. It was filmed in Australia and that was all, so I don't know why it said Australia as the country of origin. Fact is, many movies produced from the American companies are not filmed in the US at all. So unless if i'm mistaken about the producers, I reverted it back to the United States. CuffX (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.90.112 (talk) [reply]

Appreciate it. I adjusted the link further to pipe link to Cinema of the United States since United States is broad. The change was because there is a roaming IP who keeps editing it away from the current link. You are right in your assessment; just need to keep an eye out for the inappropriate change back. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this back-and-forth continues to happen for over a month, I requested semi-protection of the page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is also a british production-company involved, called Goldcrest Pictures. Sadly you cannot even trust IMDB on country of origin, because they often have inexplicable stupid mistakes on their pages. The movie was filmed in Australia, but that does not count for country of origin and I cannot find any reliable source for the participation of an Australian production company. So we better stick to american-british. --77.4.88.32 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dave Edwards at the Daily Mirror[edit]

This is going back and forth. I was hoping that someone could bring their arguments here so we can the appropriate middle ground. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper, and the other newspapers from which we use the reviews are these: New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Sun-Times. From these newspapers, reviews can be considered pretty respectable. A review from a tabloid newspaper is not. In addition, the review (added by an IP) is not necessary here; what existed before the addition was already a pretty well-rounded section. If it's necessary to add more reviews, we can pull some from Metacritic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering where we (meaning Wikipedia) have previously determined that the Daily Mirror isn't a reliable reference for film reviews. I am not adverse to obtaining more film reviews, but I am wondering where the precedent for downplaying this one is. Granted, the Mirror is a tabloid, but we aren't talking about the sexual peccadilloes of political front men - we are talking about a film review. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until (if) this generates more discussion, I can say that I neither really support nor oppose this inclusion. The reliability of the source is already being discussed, so here are my comments on other aspects of this portion of the critical reception section: As I noted in an edit summary, there could be issues regarding a certain film article guideline. Food for thought: "Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended [...] though evaluations from several English-speaking territories are desirable". Is Dave Edwards prominent enough? He doesn't have his own article. If not, does coverage surrounding his review make an exception? When I earlier did some minor cleanup and trim of the edit in question, I read the review, which as a review, I didn't find helpful at all. It's basically a brief synopsis of the film told with two attempts at humor. The first attempt is what appears in the article. As it focuses on Cage's role being detrimental to the film, I had moved this bit so that it would supplement the San Francisco Chronicle's description of the same opinion. But, this part basically just says "Nicolas Cage is in this movie, so I'm not surprised that the film is bad", without explaining how and why Cage's role in the film makes the film (the subject of the article) worse, unlike the Chronicle review. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this addition, I think it is more likely that the anonymous IP added the review in a stab at humor. All the more reason to remove it, since it was not a serious contribution. Arcayne, these newspapers tend to have more serious-minded reviews, though I don't particularly care for reviews by film critics in which they hate a film and have some fun wording their hate. I'd rather cite reviews that actually address the film's value or lack thereof. Not just "Nicolas Cage sucks" but "Nicolas Cage sucks because he does not have much of an acting range." In my experience, we tend to draw from reviews listed at Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics page. That is where the bar is set, and we don't go below it. Reviews from periodicals such as Sight & Sound and Film Comment are even better, but they're not so immediately accessible. Reviews from tabloid newspapers are not really the most authoritative discourses on film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to begin with the core issue, could you (Erik) supply some evidence that an IP spoofed the Mirror's web content to add the review? If you can prove that accusation, the rest of the argument is moot. Dave Edwards is not Dave Edwards but an anon IP, and therefore not citable. Btw, just because Dave Edwards isn't David Edwards (journalist) or is listed in David Edwards is not proof of fakery. There are lots of folk in the UK that use that name; for Pete's sake, I went to school with three different David Edwards'. Just because we haven't an article doesn't strip them of the ability to be cited. We are citing them as the voice of their media outlet. If the outlet considers them good enough to rep them, we - again - don't get to gainsay that.
On the off-chance that Erik is hazarding a guess (reasoned as it may be :)), I think we can set aside the MOS"Critics argument as a misapprehended red herring. While it would splendid and grand to have Film Content or S&S grace the film with its evaluation, those aren't readily apparent at this time. I am sure when they occur, they will be added. Until that time, we need to work with the citations that we have. If one reviewer feels that the film's quality is affected direly by the mere presence of Nicholas Cage, then we are not of an appropriate notability to counterweight that argument. The citation also speaks to the weakish plot (which we could conceivably note), - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, July 6, 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that the person (the anonymous IP) saw the review and thought what Edwards wrote was very humorous and wanted to spice up the Wikipedia article by quoting the humorous passage. It does not appear to be a serious-minded contribution is what I meant, and even if we perceived it as such, reviews from tabloid newspapers are not authoritative discourses on film. We do not need the review since the others have done the job just fine for the past few months. Sight & Sound reviewed the film in its May 2009 issue; if we really need to have another review for some reason, one like that would be preferable. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what you meant now. While I think I disagree with the intent of the IP, I do see that it is somewhat redundant, reinforcing SoSaysChappy's point. I just don't want the article to suffer from too few sources - we can always trim sources when we have too many. I guess this would appear to be one of those situations. Do you happen to have a link to the article from F&S? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pasted text from review: Ripold, Nicolas (2009). "Knowing". Sight & Sound: 67–68. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, that is far more instructive a beating than that which Edwards administered. Let's use it instead. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mirror is NOT a source for the Wikipedia, regardless if it's "just" a movie-review or something else. Everybody is allowed to delve in stupid rubbish like this, wiki-writers should avoid to cite stupid rubbish and upgrade dirty tabloids with any citing. --77.4.88.32 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winged creatures[edit]

I added that they were winged because...

I just spent $4 to rent this movie and I want my money back. Had I realized it was religious propaganda I wouldn't have rented it. Normally I come online and read the wiki first but I didn't tonight and now I'm wondering if this entry would been informative enough for me anyway.

Someone added:

"Please do not put any critical/personal interpretation here of what the beings are, unless a specific filmmaker source can be cited; also please refer to discussion page "

Maybe they're trying not to have "spoilers" but it's unfair for people who would like info on the movie for just this sort of thing.

The creatures sprout wings at the end, which can be interpreted however one likes, but it's factual, not speculation so I think it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but note that things on Wikipedia must be verifiable and if we don't have a reliable source talking about the "religious propaganda", then we can't include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bovineboy2008 (talk • contribs) 08:40, July 15, 2009
I put that hidden message there, back when several editors were doing just that...flooding that particular portion with original research (looks like it still needs to be there, eh?). It has nothing to do with preventing "spoilers" from being included (the whole plot summary is a spoiler!). Reading this article's plot summary is just like watching the film...read/watch what happens and make up your own mind. Wikipedia does not exist as a guide for possible "religious propaganda" in films. 516 unique users have made edits to this article....do we each owe you three-quarters of a cent? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is accurate to call it "religious propaganda". It has religious symbolism, but the director deliberately made it vague whether the strangers are aliens or angels, or even if the angels in the bible were really aliens. Sheherazahde (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is not informative enough. It doesn't even mention the drawing of Chariot vision of Ezekiel found in Lucinda's home, which, in my opinion, is a key factor in understanding the movie. --GnuDoyng (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable, published secondary sources that touch on Ezekiel and what the imagery means for the movie? We can't add such introspection on our own; we can only describe the basic overview of the plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture that is found in Lucinda's cabin is Matthäus Merian's engraving of Ezekiel's "chariot vision" (Although for some reason the wheel and the angels are flipped). They never identify it as such in the film and the director says in the commentary that the artist is "unknown". But it is a famous picture. Sheherazahde (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blatant religious tones in the movie probably deserve a mention, at least somewhere. Looking over the article it doesn't mention anything about the Ezekiel thing. I mean, I'm not sure what the criteria for sources are exactly, but I imagine something in the actual movie should probably warrant mention. For instance, there are four strangers in the movie. Merkabah, or the Chariot as described by Ezekiel as the Throne Chariot of God, is driven by 4 Chayot. Less blatant, but still there, reference includes the children running toward a single giant tree, ala The Tree of Knowledge. But that's less provable, the connection between Ezekiel, however, is established by the movie. I find it hard to believe that such importance would be placed on Ezekiel's chariot in the movie, and the fact that the spaceship looks similar to it and is piloted by 4 lifeforms would be just a simple coincidence. It should at least warrant mention, it's in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.18.6 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Step one: Find source. Step two: Add to article. :) This would be good information to include in other parts of the article. The plot summary, though, is more or less a description of what transpires on the screen Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry User 65, people can't so much as say that the sun rises in the morning without a source these days on Wikipedia. It's because of some absurd NOR policy that should have been collapsed years ago. --86.151.94.171 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


" Less blatant, but still there, reference includes the children running toward a single giant tree, ala The Tree of Knowledge. But that's less provable, the connection between Ezekiel, however, is established by the movie. I find it hard to believe that such importance would be placed on Ezekiel's chariot in the movie, and the fact that the spaceship looks similar to it and is piloted by 4 lifeforms would be just a simple coincidence. It should at least warrant mention, it's in the movie."

Why should it be the tree of knowledge? The kids already have whatever that tree was supposed to have given Adam & Eve. The tree of everlasting life, perhaps (unless they once again listen to the talking snake)? I agree that the movie is definitely in the "religion was right all along!" genre, with such films as "Contact." But since the directors didn't really go out of their way to make that explicit, maybe the wiki entry needs to be cautious about the interpretation (even if it is a very plausible one; like you say, the 'strangers' do develop what appear to be wings). I think the trouble with trying to shoe-horn intereptations into the main article is it will quickly over-shadow the more or less objective account of the plot, actors, dates, locations, etc. Now, on one hand, that might be useful. It would raise the possibility that someone might explain how two all white bunnies emerged from what was supposed to be a forest around Boston. On the other hand, surely there's a forum somewhere on the www where people speculate and interpret on movies, and have already begun that discussion. Maybe the wiki article could link to that? Or maybe a section titled "Religious Themes..."? C d h (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the movie is going out on themes from the Bible, then it would be the Tree of Life, as that is the only tree mentioned in the Book of Revelation (last book in the Bible), and described as the only tree seen when the new heaven and earth are created (Revelation 22:2). I can't find any source that this is what the directors and writers of the movie intended, so any mention of this should be brief and approached with sensitivity. For those interested, an in depth article into what the symbolisms in the film mean
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_symbolism_in_the_movie_Knowing
I found them to be fairly accurate. --Messenger777 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the DVD commentary the director discusses the overt religious symbolism in the film and also specifically at 1:27:01 on the DVD calls the tree at the end of the film the "Tree of Knowledge". Sheherazahde (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This film isn't an innocent science fiction thriller, it's clearly a thinly veiled Christian allegory. It's an attempt to show the value of a deterministic worldview - where everything happens for a reason - over a worldview based on accidental events. There are many Christian tropes in evidence here, most notably the idea of the Rapture as well as, if I'm not mistaken - Noah's Ark? Not to mention the Return of the Prodigal Son - to the family headed by the religious patriarch. I think a section titled Christian themes wouldn't be amiss here.Totorotroll (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but without sourcing it would still be original research and inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenwriter Ryne Douglas Pearson (a Catholic) said in an interview related to wheter or not the 4 guys are angels and if they show wings at the end: “Yeah, they’re there.” But it is that nebulous enough to have you look and it and go, “Wait a minute… are those wings?” --77.4.88.32 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Location[edit]

I have just restored some corrections I made a couple of weeks ago regarding the setting of the film. Most scenes in the film take place in my home town of Lexington, which is a suburb of Boston but which is definitely not part of it. The elementary school is explicitly captioned as being in Lexington in the opening scene (and the year is explictly shown as 1959, not just "circa 1959". Fifty years later, John's house is also set in Lexington, given that his son attends the same school that Lucinda did. (The Lexington school system is town-wide, and the only non-Lexingtonians who attend Lexington schools are a small set of students from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in Boston, who are voluntarily bused to Lexington and other suburban school systems under the state's METCO program.) The newspaper headline describing Lucinda's death says that a local resident has died; the newspaper in question is the Lexington Minute-Man (which is the actual name of Lexington's weekly local paper), so it is clear that Lucinda's mobile home (which is later the alien landing site) is also located in Lexington. The plane crash scene occurs on a highway of indeterminate location, but a subsequent scene of television news refers to it on-screen as the "Lexington crash". This makes sense, given that John was in the process of rushing from his home to the school to pick up his son, and both locations are in Lexington.

BTW, there is no actual William Dawes Elementary School in Lexington, but there very well could be. William Dawes was a local patriot at the beginning of the American Revolution, and many of the elementary and middle schools in Lexington are named after local revolutionary figures.

Aside from the Manhattan subway crash scene, the remainder of the movie is set in the Boston area, but with very little actually in Boston itself. The museum scene is set at Boston's Museum of Science, and John's parents appear to live in a townhouse located in Boston, but that's it. The MIT classroom and quad scenes are of course set on MIT's campus in Cambridge, and the observatory is specifically cited as being in Westford. The gas station and car-crash scenes are of indeterminate location, but since the characters are initially fleeing westward from Lexington for the alleged safety of the tunnels, they would be heading farther away from Boston, not toward it. 128.221.197.55 (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. If I recall correctly, the edits were removed because they didn't cite reliable sources. Understand that I am not saying you as a person is unreliable, but instead referring to you as a citable source of information. I think a way around this would be for you to add references from the local newspaper there in Lexington that discuss how and where the filming took place. Without citation, it cannot be in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Arcayne. Information in articles need to be verifiable by any reader, so details like this need to come from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this, so I don't know all the rules. But my quandary is that many of the location-based corrections I made were based not on external sources, but on information presented in the film itself. (Remember, the issue was where the movie was SET, not where it was FILMED, a topic that has already been well-documented.) So I have cited captions and scenes in the movie that are quite explicit about location (i.e., the "Lexington, Massachusetts 1959" caption that the film opens with), but these cannot be backed by any supporting URLs, short of someone posting a pirated version of the script or the entire film somewhere on the internet (which I am certainly not advocating!). These captions and scenes are, however, readily verifiable by anyone watching the movie. Other examples would be the "Lexington Crash" graphic on the CNN-like TV screen shot, the "Local Resident" headline on the front page of the Lexington newspaper, the "MIT" caption that implies the Cambridge location for the classwork and quad scenes, and the Boston skyline scenes that establish the location of John's parents' home. Let me know if there's some better way to document such references. - 75.189.156.17 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Film is "Typical Proyas"[edit]

Regarding the whole "neo noir" style, however, I found it to be too much of a rip-off of the anime "Gilgamesh" for comfort. All the plots were totally different its the same core story; end of the world, only "the innocent" survive, there's a tree at the end, the end. Frankly, the anime "Gilgamesh" was superior, it was far darker, and the villains far more ominous (the Gilgamesh). In many ways, the cold expression of The Strangers, was reminiscent of The Gilgamesh. Admitedly though The Strangers were a lot more benign, in many instances in the "Gilgamesh" anime, the Gilgamesh creatures were just plain evil. Whereas The Strangers were quiet, and compassionate, the Gilgamesh, by contrast, had a very "you're all doomed, we can treat you how we like" attitude towards humans. More disturbingly, the Gilgamesh, except one, were devoid of compassion towards humans ANY humans, not even "good children" by contrast, the Strangers were out to save them, and at the end of the movie they apparently took kids from all over the world.

In the end though, "Typical Proyas," even if it is a bit derivative. Fans of this film may also enjoy the anime "Gilgamesh." Similar plot, but with creepier bad guys. The strangers, WERE pretty cold, at least that is the impression they gave at first but they revealed themselves compassionate beings in the end. Again though, the Gilgamesh were creatures completely devoid of compassion; I've spoiled too much of the plot already you'll have to watch it yourselves.

67.148.120.94 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If you're suggesting that this film drew inspiration from this "Gilgamesh" you would need sources, or else it would be original research. Otherwise, this is a personal review, and this page is reserved for discussions related to improving the article. See WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is that possible?[edit]

Is it possible that a great solar flare can destory the Earth like in the film? Can so great solar flare exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.125.21 (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the commentary on the DVD the director admits to taking some liberties with the science. In one of the DVD extras they talk about how solar flares are common and of no danger to people on earth, although they could hurt people on a space station in orbit. Sheherazahde (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is definitely possible, but very unlikely... the Sun would have to enter a new phase of dramatic flare activity that we have no historical evidence to support and have a serious eruption that just happened to be aimed perfectly at Earth... there are extinction theories about flare activity or gamma ray burst that have been going on for a long time... much more likely scenario is an undetected near earth object that impacts like Deep Impact.. we are overdue for such an event in historical terms, sad but true... the Russian meteor was a big reminder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuoldman (talk • contribs) 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Is that possible?[edit]

I was wondering about that myself. It would be nice to see some one to create an entry cover the science in the film. I personally think of it as unlikely since the amount of mass needed for that kind of solar flare is rediculuos. One can say there is corilations between solar flare activity and 2012. Solar activity runs a 12 year cycle with its next peak being around 2011-2012. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.151.79 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I as well. That solar flare was truly enormous, almost more like a nova than a flare. I'll bet - but don't quote me on this, there is no precedent - if Sol were to be replaced by Altair, the effects would not be so drastic. RadicalTwo (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Childhood's End (Arthur C Clarke)[edit]

Did anyone else notice large thematic borrowings from Arthur C Clarke's novel "Childhood's End"? If so, should there be a cited mention of some sort? RadicalTwo (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


who is Ted Myles?[edit]

All sorts of review sites give the name Ted Myles as the father of Caleb Myles, rather than John Koestler and Caleb Koestler. what gives?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City: where most of the solar flare inferno occurs[edit]

Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the article? They show famous landmarks being destroyed such as the Metlife Building, Times Square, and the Empire State Building.

Here's a clip from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j8nuUVByrU — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 05:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary too long?[edit]

I personally don't think the summary's too long. It covers all the essential details of the movie, and that is exactly what the "plot" section does. Plus, there is nothing that you can look at and say that its an unnecessary detail. So, shouldn't the "plot summary too long or excessively detailed" box be removed? What say? Aditya San. (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

791 words isn't great, but isn't horrible. I've de-tagged it. Anyone who wants to re-tag it could spend a few minutes trimming the summary. Doniago (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Propaganda Movie?[edit]

Aliens coming to save the chosen ones from Armageddon? Isn't that exactly what Scientology tries to sell their followers? And yet no single mention of that in the article. Arotto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ebert & Proyas[edit]

The article states: "Roger Ebert of Chicago Sun-Times, a friend of Proyas, was enthusiastic about the film....". The wording suggests that one of the main reasons Ebert championed the film was because of his "friendship" with Proyas. I have no idea if they are indeed friends, but, either way, the phrasing can be read as being both a slight against Ebert's journalistic integrity and a disingenuous attempt to belittle his critical authority. As I understand his review of the movie (as well as his reflections in his blog entry), Ebert found the film's script thought-provoking (for better or for worse) and admired the film as a well-paced, entertaining thriller. I suggest that the friendship reference be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForHimForRaoul (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

The article quotes Proyas as having said, "how it shape their lives". There appears to be a word missing, or "shape" should be past tense ("shapes"), or Proyas apparently doesn't speak English all that well. I couldn't find a reference online to this alleged quote, except multiple copies of the text here. Can anyone shed some light so we can fix this? sugarfish (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distance from the Earth to the Sun[edit]

Mr O'Neill, of Discovery Science, claims that the "most powerful solar flares" originate "100 million miles" away from the Earth. Yet, the center of the Sun is never more than 96 million miles away from the Earth. So, I have removed the portion of his cite, which refers to his reckoning of distance, while leaving the meat of the fact that solar flares pose no threat to physical structures upon the Earth's surface. 70.178.83.112 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows the severity of solar flares in the future? -- AstroU (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror-inverted picture![edit]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Ezekiel%27s_vision.jpg/375px-Ezekiel%27s_vision.jpg - This picture is mirror-inverted. You can google it! -- 92.206.194.177 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knowing_(film)&oldid=1217390576"