Talk:The Book of Eli

Recreation

The Entertainment Weekly citation verifies that filming has begun, so I recreated the article per the notability guidelines for future films. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallout

I'm surprised there's no mention of the Fallout video game series. The movie's visuals (both costumes and scenery) are very similar, and the plot seems to be conceptually similar (single person with a "plot device" which will change the world). There are several active threads about the similarities on IMDB's Book of Eli message board comparing the two works; and a google search indicates this is a common comparison. Has the writer or director made any statements on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDNick484 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary Whitta, the writer, doesn't have any direct quotes, but you can safely assume his background in PC gaming and Fallout's success on that platform could be linked to the setting of this movie. Bobbyblade (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what happens when you assume, it has a lot to do with making an ass out of u and me. Find a direct quote. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, there are remarkable similarities. Aside from the setting, the Brotherhood of Steel in the Fallout universe are dedicated to preserving the pre-war knowledge and technology. Malcolm McDowell's presence is a giggle in and of itself, as he had a substantial part in Fallout 3, albeit in a very different role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.244.109 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Your opinion and/or your observations are not relevant, and this is not a forum for general discussion of the film. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, what you have been reading here was a discussion containing opinion and observations to enrich the article. I am glad that you weren't archaic nor stubborn and avoided giving an excellent example why Wikipedia can't be taken seriously, not even to its own community. It's always better to be supportive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.32.152 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

The plot synopsis is insanely long, and full of unnecessary information (eg. "In the bar, a cat steps on his pack and he nudges it away.") 96.51.95.57 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is one long plot synopsis. Are they generally that long? Llamabr (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That was a ridiculously long plot summary. --68.51.72.144 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Llambr, I was going to mention that a common thing on Wikipedia is for someone to write the whole plot of the movie. RandMC (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually per WP:FILMPLOT, a plot summary should only be 400-700 words - not some scene-by-scene description of the entore film. --Madchester (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, although per WP:IGNORE, there will always be another Wikipedia user who sees a 400–700-word plot summary, who believes that the summary isn't comprehensive enough, and who will then add some detail he believes to be important. Do that enough, and you get the entire story. 24.18.210.241 (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed it to 563 words, and removed the cast as they were all wikilinked in the summary. If it bloats up (and several have tried to do that by using ten words where one will do and by re-introducing subplots that don't relate to the main plot) then revert. Spelling corrections or attempts to make the sentences flow are fine but the limit with what is there is around another hundred words, most of the bloats from the last 24hrs add nearly 300 words. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It also looks like it mildly resembles the Just A Pilgrim comic book miniseries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.105.235 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Exciting, but do you have a source? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The mention that Carnegie will die without ever being able to read the bible is misleading... he states early in the movie that he grew up with the bible... he just will not get to read THIS copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofcbob (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Inspirations?

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Numerous media outlets have compared the movie in style and plot to the Fallout series of video games. Screenwriter Gary Whitta is a former editor-in-chief of both the UK and US editions of PC Gamer magazine, so he is familiar with this prolific video game series.

This is nothing but speculation on the part of a fanboy, published on a nonreliable entertainment blog, in which the truth of the claim is disputed. There is nothing verified by any source connected with the film. This has to stay out until it is verified. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Eli blind?

There is a lot done with smell and sound. He knew the blind woman came into the room because he smelled her shampoo. He smelled the highway robbers, he heard the old couple's china clinking. He smelled the water in the jug. He heard the bird coming before he shot it with an arrow. Also, on the other side he was totally unfazed by the dead body in the closet and unfazed when Solara almost drove them through the Golden Gate Bridge.

He's supposed to have Daredevil-esque senses to compensate, but he is definitely supposed to be blind blind. We walk by faith not by sight. 147.70.110.96 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) How on earth can Eli be blind? He notices that Frances de la Tour's hands are shaking and there are countless other moments that require sight. Btline (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He actually says "they're hands are shaking?", which implies that he is checking with Solara, rather than telling her. The the copy of the Bible is in braille, and his eyes are milky. And he is blind, is how he is blind. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a film with religious overtones, Eli's feats are apparently supposed to be allowed by his faith in god. Their are numerous clues that he is blind, when his MP3 player dies he hits the button several times because he can't read the "battery low" screen, when he finds the lighter he has to move his hand over it to see if it lights, and when he is on the old couple's house he could hear the china rattling because the lady's hands shake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.169.230 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

How about shooting people? Finding a car to hide behind to shelter from bullets. How about finding a shop where they re-charge batteries? Knowing the door to the cave had a lock. Seeing the cat to shoot it. Recognising the people who had killed on the road. Seeing the house to shelter in. I could go on. As for hitting play several times after the no battery sign shows up - I've done that before! There is NO way he is 100% blind all the way though. Perhaps he is going blind, and has done by the end. Btline (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be your opinion, take it to the imdb boards, because speculation is not part of an encyclopaedia. Bare in mind that there are not enough nuclear weapons to destroy the face of the Earth, let alone the US (we have 5% of the total needed, if all nuclear warheads are added up), it's a film; suspend your disbelief. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone from the movie comes out and says he's blind, what you're saying is just as much your opinion as what he is saying is his. King Rhyono (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense, I've seen the film, and at the end (SPOILER ALERT!!) Eli is revealed as blind, they take five minutes to do it, carefully showing his eyes, in extreme close up, then the Bible is revealed to be in Braille, and then Jennifer Beals character (who is also blind) reveals she has a strong sense of smell, something that Eli has also mentioned he has. Eli is blind, that is unambiguous. That Btline does not accept the big reveal is his own opinion, thus not relevant to this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I must ask why Eli looks from side to side upon exiting the store in town, noticing the marksman on the roof, if he were blind. Vranak (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Listening out, and then hears the guy? All OR of course, but then that's the whole problem. magnius (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the only reason anyone supposes that Eli may be blind is because he can read Braille. Do only blind people know Braille? Could only blind people know Braille? Vranak (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason any one supposes Eli is blind is because he is, and that is the third act twist. Anything else is guess work, better suited for your blog. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be very sure of yourself! Very well though -- the truth is the truth. And the position you are in is one of bluster and intimidation. A little pathetic, but what can one do. Vranak (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, biting your tongue helps. Eli is revealed to be blind, and has been reading a braille Bible for 30 years, before he leaves the town he doesn't shoot until he hears where the shots come from, he doesn't attack until others attack him and he can figure out where they are. Having seen the film once it is clear that he is blind for the whole film, and not recently blind, because those who lose their sight stumble and bump into things, Eli is too co-ordinated for someone who has recently lost their sight. The third act twist makes no sense if he has only just become blind. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you are either living in a fantasy realm to believe a blind man could do what Eli does in that movie, or you're being deliberately obtuse. In any event you may believe what you may, I will trouble you no further. Vranak (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys its a damn movie about ninja blind people, like, hes blind, they do a close up on his milkey eyes it is clear the director wanted to say "HE IS BLIND". If they did this weel through the whole movie is another point. Theres a saying about all of you "You accept the dragon and trolls of The Hobbit, but cannot accept that 6 dwarfs could haul out all the gold themselves". 173.62.207.144 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The first scene when he entered the house. He walked backwards when he entered the room. No one does that especially with an exposed window behind him, that part I didn't understand why till the end. He was blind. As for another good reason why he was blind, sunglasses in the first battle scene under the dark pass. His hearing is of the premise that he can hear the movement of weapons. So it wouldn't be farfetched he can probably hear sounds of similar intesity, breathing, wind patterns, and shuffling. It is obvious he had extra hearing(bird one shot) and smelling(bandits). As for finding shelter, creaking and wind. Watch the movie again for the cannibal house. He doesn't notice it till Solara tells him. Solara acted as his guide for a lot of the movie. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.252.132 (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You lads believe what you want to believe. I know that Denzel can see, so all is characters can too. Vranak (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that fact that he carries a braille Bible for 30 years and they do a close up on his eyes to show he is blind, because that is the point of him constantly referencing his heightened sense of smell and hearing, and why he always wears sunglasses, otherwise the twist at the end of the film is pointless. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

His marksmanship nullifies the assumption that he would have to be blind to know Braille. Maybe he was so intrigued by the Bible that he had someone else teach him. And I know the closeup you are talking about -- his eyes looked glazed because he was internally reflecting on things. Just thinking. We all do that from time to time. Vranak (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people argue merely for the sake of arguing. Please accept all the above mentioned scenes which hint that the guy is blind, plus one more...he kicks (or stumbles on) the first step on the old couple's house. Of course there are scenes where the director is a bit overreacting, but that's why it's called a 'movie'. In addition, the main character is sort of 'in a mission from god', so he is somehow 'guided' and 'protected'.Vassilakis (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The step thing I will accept. Cheers. :) Vranak (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I take it back. At around the 12 minute mark, after Eli spends the night in that shack, he gets up and looks out the window. Emphasis on looks. Not listens, looks. See for yourself. He's plainly using his eyes as any sighted person would. Vranak (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Eli was blind in one eye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlpitt (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is all speculation until one of the creators of the film reveals their vision of the truth. Thus, we must use the term "possibly blind" in the synopsis. Otherwise it IS biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.11.158 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian film blog refers to "at least two ham-fisted final act twists, which most viewers will have spotted coming a mile off"- the Braille Bible is one, Eli being blind is the other. Most reviewers mentions a Bible (not the Braille twist) and most leave out the final spoiler of the blindness but when they do mention spoilers like this they mention "And we see for the first time that Eli is blind.", and "Umm… Eli’s blind!!! Oh, shit, I did NOT see that coming". Funny that if you look for reviews with spoilers they all say "Eli is blind", clearly they are all missing the point that he is fully sighted. The second review link actually misses that the "them" that the townsfolk talk of are cannibals (when checking the hands), so they missed some of the smaller details, but they get that he is blind even TV tropes. On imdb, look at the rollover for spoilers you see "twist in the end" and "blind", take a look at the synopsis, "Eli was blinded in the apocalypse"; and imdb is user submitted, but then fact checked, so at least two other people in imdb thought Eli was blind. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this looks to me to be a sarcastic appeal to consensus gentium. I don't care what a thousand half-wits think. I can see and think for myself. Vranak (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, "there is none so blind as he who will not see." (Joachim57 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Indeed there is not my naive friend! :) Vranak (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add, since everyone is so divided whether Eli is blind or not because he's carrying a bible in braille; are blind people the ONLY ones who can read braille? Has there NEVER been a person who could see and yet still feel braille code? Just because you can read braille doesn't mean you're blind. Ghostalker (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is exactly what I was thinking. I mean Eli could have someone teach him to read Braille, once he had the book. Vranak (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Vranak please explain what is the major plot twist the Hughes Brothers and Gary Whitta were implying in interviews to at the end of the movie. If it is not Eli is blind in some respect what is the major plot twist in your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.252.132 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that there is even an argument about this. He is obviously blind. All the dialogue, the actions within the film, and then the climax of switching between scenes reveal that. He wears sunglasses even at night. Hearing the bird before even seeing it. Telling the girl, "he was not sleeping," only knowing she was there after HEARING her. And then the biggest kicker to symbolism in this movie: HIS NAME. In the Books of Samuel, Eli, the blind priest. Everyone else in the world gets it and sees it, and yet you don't? Are you being purposely obtuse? 98.244.246.157 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point Vranak is purposely being obtuse. The plot twist is obvious and well reported but Vranak, and other IPs, are choosing to deliberately obtuse and ignore the obvious. Despite clues in the film (such as, Eli travels West based on faith alone, blind faith), and while it may be a stupid plot twist because it doesn't explain how he became so good at combat, it is the twist. Having a Braille bible does not make him blind, but sighted people don't read Braille, while hearing people may learn sign language sighted people do not learn Braille. The Bible being Braille enforces the plot twist, because audiences are stupid and unless you have someone saying "You're blind!" then the reveal that the Bible in Braille is telling the audience "Eli is blind, that's the twist, Gary Oldman will never be able to read it because no sighted people can read Braille and he is going to die of a gangrenous leg". So Vranak (and those IPs of that ilk) either 1) missed the twist (getting more food or peeing) 2) they didn't understand the twist (which would explain why they have dug in this deep) or 3) they know the twist but want to argue. If 1), 2) or 3) is true then they have no contribution to make to this page and they would do better off going elsewhere and editing another article. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

KJB, thus biblical code, 'Jerusalem will be defended by the blind and the lame'. The blind are those who believe, are strong from their belief. The lame are those who don´t believe, they are able to see. Proverb, The blind carry the lame, believers being directed by non-believers. That´s what faith and bible is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.254.16 (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's even a debate about this. While the movie didn't explicitly say "Eli is blind", any reasonable viewer could see that the scenes with the braille bible and the milky eyes strongly suggest that Eli is blind (perhaps to the point of obviousness). I'm not an expert in Wikipedia policy, but I believe there is precedent that if reasonable viewer can tell that the movie is strongly suggesting something (perhaps to the point of obviousness), then the corresponding Wikipedia article can state this as fact. (No, I'm not going to find said precedence to back up my claim, because I am willing to compromise and say that those scenes "suggest Eli is actually blind". Others may not be willing to compromise, and I'll leave the "debate" to them.)

As for people arguing that Eli can't possibly be blind because how could he otherwise do all that stuff... I'm sorry to say, but the position that Eli is in fact blind is much more strongly supported with the evidence that the movie strongly suggests (perhaps to the point of obviousness) that Eli is blind. Whereas your argument stems merely from disbelief in Eli's combat abilities.

Also, to the guy down there claiming that Eli became blind over the course of the film? Original Research. Viltris (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rapture?!

I heard on FOX that this film was all set post rapture. Why is this not mentioned this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.56.216 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The film at no point makes reference to it being rapture, it is composed of speculation as, during the film, it is mentioned that some people believe that the bible, specifically the Christian bible, was the cause the catastrophic event which causes the world to become and apocalyptic wasteland. Fox is a terrible news/entertainment source. It is far more likely the result of a nuclear war. 198.162.110.34 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the news source doesn't mean you should edit out any references to it. Since both the film maker and FOX have referred to it being rapture related or at the very least rapture-inspired. Then I think it needs to go in there. DarkArtist 23:48, 18 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.147.83 (talk)

Please indicate where the Hughes Brothers or Gary Whitta have stated it was rapture related. As far as me no agreeing with the news source Fox is notoriously biased and frequently presents incorrect information. In the film it is never specifically stated other than approximately 30 years prior to the movie there was a "flash" and a hole in the sky, which may refer to ruining the ozone layer (which is why everyone wears sunglasses outside) due to atomic bombs.

I have edited the intro text to say "apocalyptic event" rather than specifically "war" or "rapture" because neither are confirmed in the film. 198.162.110.34 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To guess at the Rapture would be not allowed. To hide it behind the word event would violate WP:EGG. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Hopefully someone will find an independent reference to the Rapture to confirm all these rumours. DarkArtist 00:04, 19 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.147.83 (talk)

It is not being hidden. There is simply not a concrete reason for the destruction of the world given in the film. To say it was an apocalyptic war would be incorrect as it never specified in the film. Whatever the cause is, it would certainly be an apocalyptic event. 198.162.110.34 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It was being hidden. It was being placed behind a link. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, looking back at the history I see what you're saying. Someone edited into "event" to link to rapture and has subsequently tried to revert to constantly saying "rapture." I concur that linking to rapture is unacceptable. Apocalyptic event is a better term than either war or rapture because the film is intentionally vague as to what happened to the world. 198.162.110.34 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eli says in the movie that most of the bibles were destroyed in the flash and the rest were destroyed after..possibly meaning that the event was a war against Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dns0005 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He says the were destroyed after the flash, because they were blamed as the cause. The war (or whatever) may or may not be connected to Xianity, but they were blamed afterwards. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Christian films?

I'm not necessarily interested in this film, but it sounds like it would fit this category and is in a project related to it. Is that a correct idea or way off?--T. Anthony (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The main quest involves the Bible, and there are strong Christian overtones. It's in the right place. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Gary Whitta said in an interview it was never meant to be a religious movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.252.132 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is dead because of people like Darrenhusted who lords over his domain like the worst form of mandarin.24.32.45.152 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a film where the Bible is the main plot device, alongside discussions of faith. It would be classed as a Christian film by most people, regardless of what the writer thinks. And 24.32.45.152, don't delete another users comments, and if you're going to snipe do it in public and not in the edit history. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Eli's blindness

Eli has his sight at the onset of our journey with him.... Then. Think about it.... Eli begins to go blind after the shoot-out at the homestead of the cannabilistic couple. There he is gut-shot wounded and lightning flashes. It is from that point forward he is slowly trudging westward without his glasses... glasses that protect his eyes from the radiation / rays / glare / UV / elements / solarflares / whatever of the apocalyptic environment. He has Solara to guide - drive - accompany him to the western destination..., always she has her aviator glasses in place. Always, others are wearing their glasses, their goggles, their eye protection of some type. However Eli does not wear his glasses and no longer is he seen wearing the dark glasses. The blindness (darkness) comes as the enlightenment (Bible) emerges. OOAKA (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)OOAKA

Your opinion, not relevant. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:20, 22 January

Not relevant? It poses a better argument than anything else about his blindness. Quiet honestly he hardly showed any signs of being blind in the beginning. He was a little too good at the things he did to be completely blind throughout the movie. It may be an opinion, but there is very little GOOD argument against it.Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Claudia

Is "wife" really the best word to describe her relationship with Carnegie? I got the impression it was much more slave-like. 153.42.170.64 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the movie, say 2 hours ago. No where in the movie did it suggest that she was his "wife."Halofanatic333 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cast list

Does this article need a cast section, or should we just leave it how it is, with the cast being listed in the plot? Some editors feel a cast section is redundant, since the cast is most of the time listed in the plot or in a "Casting" section. Thoughts about a cast list for this article? —Mike Allen 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If all the actors are wikilinked there is very little to be added with a cast list. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The plot expansively lists all the commendable cast, IMO (haven’t seen the film, but comparing to the cast list at All Movie). I figured if the article "needed" a cast list, someone would have already included one. I just wanted to make sure before I extravagantly created one. So much to do, no time to waste. :) Thanks for you input. —Mike Allen 05:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)