![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
Should we put that there was a war that caused the devastation we see in the movie? Eli even says "they say the war tore a hole in the sky" and bomb craters are seen frequently in the movie. I thought that was interesting to note. It may not have been a nuclear war, but it was a devastating war nonetheless. — G.Freeman ( talk • contrib) 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Rapture may have occurred - but there was a war first. That was the apocalypse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 07:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:
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)
I'm really loving this discussion! Everyone is bringing up awesome stuff! But it could be very possible that Eli was blind before and when God gave him this mission He restored Elis' sight. Eli being blind before means would of had to rely on his senses and we all can see the parts in the movie where he still does. I know there's indications of Eli still being blind. So maybe God restored his eyesight just enough to make his mission easier and towards Elis' arrival to his missions end that gift steadily disappeared, which could explain why his eyes had that milky coat indicating he was blind again. I dont know, it was an amazing movie and the writer deffinatly left enough room for our own minds to wander (no pun intended) into the back story of Eli and his faith in God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.9.155 ( talk) 07:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
One thing that seems to be forgotten is that there is a spiritual element here. Eli walks by faith, not by sight. Many say that he couldn't do the things he had done in the movie, but he was tasked by God, and received God's protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjLoKr13 ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Bible was in braille- but that merely served to protect its contents from Carnegie, who hadn't long to live, so could never convert it from braille himself. Eli had found the one remaining Bible, which happened to be in Braille. What was the chance of that? Or that God would choose a blind man for the mission. More likely Eli was fully sighted, but the Bible in braille to protect it from the unrighteous. Eli had plenty of time to learn braille, so leaving the power of using the Bible in his sole handes - he alone could covert it into normal text. It was useless to Carnegie or anyone else. So he was not just the messenger -he held the message within himself. 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 08:07, 23 May 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)
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)
Eli was blind in one eye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlpitt ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 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)
Alas, "there is none so blind as he who will not see." ( Joachim57 ( talk) 17:21, 25 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)
His eyes are pale, milky-white, dead. TOTALLY BLIND." Darrenhusted ( talk) 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This is absolutely hilarious. Yeah, that giant zoom in on his milky-white eyes was to emphasize that he wasn't blind. That was just thrown in there for giggles. Honestly, when a giant dramatic zoom is done on someone's milky-glazed eyes and, at the exact same time, it's revealed the book is in braille, which is for blind people, it means he's blind. 70.78.8.75 ( talk) 11:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Vranak is just posting to cause a stir. If you check his User Discussion page, he made a shrine to all the trouble he causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.252.132 ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Eli is not revealed to be blind. There is nothing that proves the point either way. It is never stated that he can or cannot see. I doubt that a blind person could do 1% of what he does. He may have been blind at the beginning - but would God choose a blind person for such a saga? But what about the ending. Eli had to do a lot of un-Christian things that he regretted. Could Eli have become blind at the end as a form of atonement, and reflection that his task was done? He didn't have to be blind at the start - 30 years is long enough to learn braille, and he needed his sight to complete the task God had set him. As soon as the Bible was stolen, and he was getting close to Alcatraz, he no longer needed sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 07:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Max Vitor that the movie differs greatly form the script : Eli's blindness was left ambiguous in the movie, although one may infer it if looking. Carnigie's preaching was largely dropped from the movie, in particular he's the only character that leads a public prayer or initiates hallelujah in the script. Yes, Carnigie's strong christianity remains manifest of course, but the movie lets you ignore his christianity if you so choose.
In fact, the script would have actually obligated a true evangelical christian to take Carnigie's side, which the studio couldn't stomach (boycotts, etc.). I'd say concealing Eli's blindness was a similarly spineless move aimed at keeping everyone happy. 77.2.131.193 ( talk) 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, here is the script in PDF form because despite the twist being the most discussed element of the film (and the plot hole that a Braille bible is several volumes not one) many seem to not accept it. So go to page 110. Darrenhusted ( talk) 02:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To those who believe Eli was not blind - I noticed that one or two arguments are that people who are blind cannot do what Eli did. While I understand your argument, I rather think differently. Some years ago, in the UK, there was a blind person on the show Big Brother, named Michael Hughes. When his fellow housemates were put in a similar situation to him, they said later that being blind makes your other senses more sensitive - the senses of smell and hearing especially. This was further seen by his frequent complaining of smells of fish, his covering his ears when noise volumes rose and his ability to tell where housemates were so that he could chuck water at them. Although I am not saying this means Eli is definitely blind - ambiguous plot points should remain that way - I do say that, if he has indeed been blind for 30 years, he would almost certainly have honed his other senses to the level that allow him to act in the way that he did. Grieferhate ( talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Eli was blind, of course. Obviously he was suffering from some sort of macular damage, where the central part of the retina is blind, but peripheral vision still exists. That would give him the ability to walk a highway, accept a teacup, avoid bumping into things. Perhaps he might even be a good marksman (when shooting from the hip). However, he would not be able to read text, drive a car, or recognize people by their face. There are many indications throughout the movie that he has this type of blindness, well cited above.
Wikipedia has a good article about macular degeneration. And also, there is some indication that intense light can cause macular damage, such as staring into the sun, or (perhaps) viewing a thermonuclear blast.
This whole discussion is forgetting that there are many different types of blindness. The main article should consider mentioning this. It will help educate people about the nature of blindness, because a lot of the discussion here plays to a fairly ignorant stereotype of blindness. I am guessing that not many people commenting here have ever known someone who was actually blind -- FYI they operate a lot like Eli. It would be good to acknowledge that. Wizmac ( talk) 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
In fact, they're quite clear the apocalypse was caused by nuclear-like war, although they never say nuclear, but they're clear the flashers were man made weapons. They are also rather clear that Christianity caused the war, well Eli cannot quite bring himself to blame Christianity, but you'd never won't see a Christian nation burn all it's bibles otherwise, and Eli does not offer alternative explanations.
To me, the most reasonable interpretation is that Christianity has destroyed the world in a nuclear war with either Islam or Communism. You must remember this movie was written while Bush was being kinda the evil christian leader starting wars with Islamic nations and Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
In the movie itself, Eli represents the honest Christian Eli who takes the bibles message of selflessness, while Carnegie represents Christian leadership and the organized church. Remember, they said Carnegie wanted to rule by the words of the bible because he'd grown up with it, making him a Christian leader, well otherwise he'd just write his own book.
I've known many people who professed belief in god, but rejected organized religion, and the movie's authors aim for them. 77.2.132.144 ( talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
Are there discussions of faith? Yes kinda, but not what you imagine. Eli has great faith of course, but : First, the war is undeniably blamed on faith, well people don't just burn all Bibles for no reason. Second, the preservationists view the Bible as just another important historical book, which they'll value exactly like any other ancient mythology. The story is really :
I find the story very moving, but I'm not sure many Christians agree, well not unless they ignore vast swaths of the film. We clearly see the bible being shelved just alongside other books in the end, no alter, no priest, just another mythology. In fact, the only miracle like action was Eli's walking and combat while blind, but you'll notice 30 years suggests his path wasn't terribly efficient, well presumably he just followed the road, starting each day heading away from the sun. I suppose that Solara may have become a missionary by taking up Eli's weapons of course, but that's neither obvious nor very Christian, so more likely she's just rescuing her mother. In particular, I'd hope that she'd avoid brining another bible given how evil men wished to use it. Nice movie, but I'd call it a post-apocolyptic atheist fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.132.144 ( talk) 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'm pretty mush sure the song is in our era (is it white stripes?) How come it comes in gramophones/vinyl record? It is better to be in USB storage or whatsoever i reckon. Anyone can verify this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.140.6.178 ( talk) 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
So ppl could be warned a movie is full of one-sided christian views, fantasy. It is also a help for me - cause if i see a rating like OC (Over-Christianity) i would not buy the DVD / Blu-ray as strong atheist. The christians are guilty for some depressions inside of me (U2, Libera, Coldplay and of course this movie.)
The biggest problem is: bring ppl emotional down isnt illegal. Therefore christians can bomb the Mediaworld again and again with their super-sadness and end-of-the-world-drama (fearmongering). It took me years to understand that any sadness inside of me is not born in my heart; it was made and installed in me by christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.65.170 ( talk) 03:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
The plot is too long, a few more words and it will be the legnth of the whole script
It needs slimming down considerably
Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that whoever shortened it must've had bad grammar. I am trying to clean it up. Grieferhate ( talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the couple in the hut are named George and Martha. These were the exact same names as the two main characters in the play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. I was just wondering if anyone has drawn up that conclusion, or if it has been acknowledged at all. If not, it could possibly be coincidence. Grieferhate ( talk) 10:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
Should we put that there was a war that caused the devastation we see in the movie? Eli even says "they say the war tore a hole in the sky" and bomb craters are seen frequently in the movie. I thought that was interesting to note. It may not have been a nuclear war, but it was a devastating war nonetheless. — G.Freeman ( talk • contrib) 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Rapture may have occurred - but there was a war first. That was the apocalypse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 07:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:
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)
I'm really loving this discussion! Everyone is bringing up awesome stuff! But it could be very possible that Eli was blind before and when God gave him this mission He restored Elis' sight. Eli being blind before means would of had to rely on his senses and we all can see the parts in the movie where he still does. I know there's indications of Eli still being blind. So maybe God restored his eyesight just enough to make his mission easier and towards Elis' arrival to his missions end that gift steadily disappeared, which could explain why his eyes had that milky coat indicating he was blind again. I dont know, it was an amazing movie and the writer deffinatly left enough room for our own minds to wander (no pun intended) into the back story of Eli and his faith in God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.9.155 ( talk) 07:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
One thing that seems to be forgotten is that there is a spiritual element here. Eli walks by faith, not by sight. Many say that he couldn't do the things he had done in the movie, but he was tasked by God, and received God's protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjLoKr13 ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Bible was in braille- but that merely served to protect its contents from Carnegie, who hadn't long to live, so could never convert it from braille himself. Eli had found the one remaining Bible, which happened to be in Braille. What was the chance of that? Or that God would choose a blind man for the mission. More likely Eli was fully sighted, but the Bible in braille to protect it from the unrighteous. Eli had plenty of time to learn braille, so leaving the power of using the Bible in his sole handes - he alone could covert it into normal text. It was useless to Carnegie or anyone else. So he was not just the messenger -he held the message within himself. 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 08:07, 23 May 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)
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)
Eli was blind in one eye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlpitt ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 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)
Alas, "there is none so blind as he who will not see." ( Joachim57 ( talk) 17:21, 25 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)
His eyes are pale, milky-white, dead. TOTALLY BLIND." Darrenhusted ( talk) 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This is absolutely hilarious. Yeah, that giant zoom in on his milky-white eyes was to emphasize that he wasn't blind. That was just thrown in there for giggles. Honestly, when a giant dramatic zoom is done on someone's milky-glazed eyes and, at the exact same time, it's revealed the book is in braille, which is for blind people, it means he's blind. 70.78.8.75 ( talk) 11:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Vranak is just posting to cause a stir. If you check his User Discussion page, he made a shrine to all the trouble he causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.252.132 ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Eli is not revealed to be blind. There is nothing that proves the point either way. It is never stated that he can or cannot see. I doubt that a blind person could do 1% of what he does. He may have been blind at the beginning - but would God choose a blind person for such a saga? But what about the ending. Eli had to do a lot of un-Christian things that he regretted. Could Eli have become blind at the end as a form of atonement, and reflection that his task was done? He didn't have to be blind at the start - 30 years is long enough to learn braille, and he needed his sight to complete the task God had set him. As soon as the Bible was stolen, and he was getting close to Alcatraz, he no longer needed sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 07:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Max Vitor that the movie differs greatly form the script : Eli's blindness was left ambiguous in the movie, although one may infer it if looking. Carnigie's preaching was largely dropped from the movie, in particular he's the only character that leads a public prayer or initiates hallelujah in the script. Yes, Carnigie's strong christianity remains manifest of course, but the movie lets you ignore his christianity if you so choose.
In fact, the script would have actually obligated a true evangelical christian to take Carnigie's side, which the studio couldn't stomach (boycotts, etc.). I'd say concealing Eli's blindness was a similarly spineless move aimed at keeping everyone happy. 77.2.131.193 ( talk) 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, here is the script in PDF form because despite the twist being the most discussed element of the film (and the plot hole that a Braille bible is several volumes not one) many seem to not accept it. So go to page 110. Darrenhusted ( talk) 02:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To those who believe Eli was not blind - I noticed that one or two arguments are that people who are blind cannot do what Eli did. While I understand your argument, I rather think differently. Some years ago, in the UK, there was a blind person on the show Big Brother, named Michael Hughes. When his fellow housemates were put in a similar situation to him, they said later that being blind makes your other senses more sensitive - the senses of smell and hearing especially. This was further seen by his frequent complaining of smells of fish, his covering his ears when noise volumes rose and his ability to tell where housemates were so that he could chuck water at them. Although I am not saying this means Eli is definitely blind - ambiguous plot points should remain that way - I do say that, if he has indeed been blind for 30 years, he would almost certainly have honed his other senses to the level that allow him to act in the way that he did. Grieferhate ( talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Eli was blind, of course. Obviously he was suffering from some sort of macular damage, where the central part of the retina is blind, but peripheral vision still exists. That would give him the ability to walk a highway, accept a teacup, avoid bumping into things. Perhaps he might even be a good marksman (when shooting from the hip). However, he would not be able to read text, drive a car, or recognize people by their face. There are many indications throughout the movie that he has this type of blindness, well cited above.
Wikipedia has a good article about macular degeneration. And also, there is some indication that intense light can cause macular damage, such as staring into the sun, or (perhaps) viewing a thermonuclear blast.
This whole discussion is forgetting that there are many different types of blindness. The main article should consider mentioning this. It will help educate people about the nature of blindness, because a lot of the discussion here plays to a fairly ignorant stereotype of blindness. I am guessing that not many people commenting here have ever known someone who was actually blind -- FYI they operate a lot like Eli. It would be good to acknowledge that. Wizmac ( talk) 12:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
In fact, they're quite clear the apocalypse was caused by nuclear-like war, although they never say nuclear, but they're clear the flashers were man made weapons. They are also rather clear that Christianity caused the war, well Eli cannot quite bring himself to blame Christianity, but you'd never won't see a Christian nation burn all it's bibles otherwise, and Eli does not offer alternative explanations.
To me, the most reasonable interpretation is that Christianity has destroyed the world in a nuclear war with either Islam or Communism. You must remember this movie was written while Bush was being kinda the evil christian leader starting wars with Islamic nations and Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
In the movie itself, Eli represents the honest Christian Eli who takes the bibles message of selflessness, while Carnegie represents Christian leadership and the organized church. Remember, they said Carnegie wanted to rule by the words of the bible because he'd grown up with it, making him a Christian leader, well otherwise he'd just write his own book.
I've known many people who professed belief in god, but rejected organized religion, and the movie's authors aim for them. 77.2.132.144 ( talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
Are there discussions of faith? Yes kinda, but not what you imagine. Eli has great faith of course, but : First, the war is undeniably blamed on faith, well people don't just burn all Bibles for no reason. Second, the preservationists view the Bible as just another important historical book, which they'll value exactly like any other ancient mythology. The story is really :
I find the story very moving, but I'm not sure many Christians agree, well not unless they ignore vast swaths of the film. We clearly see the bible being shelved just alongside other books in the end, no alter, no priest, just another mythology. In fact, the only miracle like action was Eli's walking and combat while blind, but you'll notice 30 years suggests his path wasn't terribly efficient, well presumably he just followed the road, starting each day heading away from the sun. I suppose that Solara may have become a missionary by taking up Eli's weapons of course, but that's neither obvious nor very Christian, so more likely she's just rescuing her mother. In particular, I'd hope that she'd avoid brining another bible given how evil men wished to use it. Nice movie, but I'd call it a post-apocolyptic atheist fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.132.144 ( talk) 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'm pretty mush sure the song is in our era (is it white stripes?) How come it comes in gramophones/vinyl record? It is better to be in USB storage or whatsoever i reckon. Anyone can verify this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.140.6.178 ( talk) 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
So ppl could be warned a movie is full of one-sided christian views, fantasy. It is also a help for me - cause if i see a rating like OC (Over-Christianity) i would not buy the DVD / Blu-ray as strong atheist. The christians are guilty for some depressions inside of me (U2, Libera, Coldplay and of course this movie.)
The biggest problem is: bring ppl emotional down isnt illegal. Therefore christians can bomb the Mediaworld again and again with their super-sadness and end-of-the-world-drama (fearmongering). It took me years to understand that any sadness inside of me is not born in my heart; it was made and installed in me by christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.65.170 ( talk) 03:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all
The plot is too long, a few more words and it will be the legnth of the whole script
It needs slimming down considerably
Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that whoever shortened it must've had bad grammar. I am trying to clean it up. Grieferhate ( talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the couple in the hut are named George and Martha. These were the exact same names as the two main characters in the play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. I was just wondering if anyone has drawn up that conclusion, or if it has been acknowledged at all. If not, it could possibly be coincidence. Grieferhate ( talk) 10:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)