Talk:The Book of Eli/Archive 1

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)

Reason for the Apocalypse

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)

It's more detail than is really necessary in describing the plot of the movie itself; it certainly doesn't warrant an entire sentence in an already bloated summary.. What is relevant is that it is a post-apocalyptic scenario, not so much the why. At most, perhaps substituting "war" for "event" in the first sentence or something similar, would be okay. But I find this movie is fading from my memory super fast since I first saw it. SO I can't recall some of these little details (the dialogue you noted for example) so well now. Weird. Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's widely acknowledged (see discussion below) that the event that precedes the film is in fact the Rapture. All of the good people have been taken up during the rapture (hole in the sky). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.147.83 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as one editor notes in that discussion, it could be viewed that this is only the interpretation of the characters in the movie after the fact. Regardless, it is still more information than is necessary for the plot summary, and essentially amounts to viewer interpretation in this case. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:02, 8 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)

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)

Yeah, the fact that Carnegie was raised a Christian is central to the plot. : If he was raised a Muslim or Mormon he'd want their books. If he didn't care, he'd just make up his own bible. But no, Carnegie specifically wanted to be a Christian priest-king. 77.2.132.144 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 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)

Elements of it (post-apocalypse, most religious texts have been obliterated, save for a few now-censured Bibles, which are being handled by the select few enlightened) are very similar to a first novel I wrote in 2005. :D 72.39.40.130 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eli blind?

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)

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)

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)

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)

When doing a book search for "Braille" at Amazon.com, the first return is Braille for the Sighted (Beginning Braille) by S. Harold Collins, Jane Schneider, and Kathy Kifer. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-28t22:03z

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)

From the script, page 110 "Eli removes his goggles. Solara can’t believe what she sees.

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)

I must admit, I came here purposefully to check whether consensus was that he was blind or not. Its good to see opinions divided as I was none too sure also. 84.92.169.252 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. The only true trolls are those who first introduce that term. Vranak (talk) 21:30, 28 April 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)

Top of page 110 of the script is says that "Eli removes his glasses, Solora is surprised to see his eyes are milky white, TOTALLY BLIND". He is blind. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you may claim is in the script the issue of Eli being blind was left deliberately ambiguous in the movie, the only thing that was ever truely confirmed was that he either knows how to read braille or had memorized the bible verbatim from another source. That it itself should be miraculous enough for you.Max Vitor (talk) 01:17, 29 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)

Wikipedia isn't here to serve interest groups, if it's pertinent it will be citeable, end of. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:18, 21 June 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)

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)

Nowhere in the film is any rapture like event mentioned

The dialogue in the film is "THey say that the war tole a hole in the sky, you probably heard the stories..." "yeah" "...TOre a hole in the sky, the sun came down and burned everything..." "...Everything and everybody"

THat is NOT rapture

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:11, 4 June 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)

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 :

Christianity's last great work has been a religious nuclear war, for which the retribution was an attempt to eradicate christian mythology. There are still evil men attempting to create religious dictatorships, but somehow the eradication was effective enough that they're failing.. and none are quite up to declaring themselves god-king and writing their own book, like Kim Jong-il, John Smith, or Mohammed, well maybe they're not educated enough. Finally, the last true Christian sacrifices himself to bring the bible to the post-thiest (atheist) educated people, who'll preserve and archive the book along with the iliad, the odyssey, and all other great mythologies.

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)

You know, I'll scratch that comment about the movie being an atheist fantasy. We've no indiction that god does or does not exist, all we know is the last bible was delivered into the hands of archivists who copied it and put it on a shelf, not would-be christian leaders like Carnegie. So maybe 'god' actually has guided Eli, but god himself wishes humanity to abandon organized christianity just like it abandoned the greek religion. I'd say that interpretation is *very* much in-line with the feelings of modern liberal religious people, like unitarians.

Also, the movie says that Carnegie "grew up with the book." To me, this says that Carnegie is a christian who wanted to rule as a christian king, and that's why he doesn't write his own book like John Smith or Kim Jong-il. In fact, Carnegie even exhibits what Christian fundamentalists view as "christian family values" in his abuse of Claudia. Very good movie!  :) 77.2.132.144 (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hughes brothers and Denzel Washington say it is not a christian film

[1] [2]

Despite the violence, some have called The Book of Eli, a Christian film. But Washington, who is also the son of a preacher, has said he wouldn't describe it as such. Instead, he'd call it a spiritual film.

"I would agree with Denzel," said Waliszewski. "And even Washington's character doesn't always act out as this man of God that he is supposed to be. There is one point that he tears this guys arm off. He warns him."

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:05, 4 June 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)

Just saw it again this weekend. Not once are the words "husband," "wife," or "marriage" used to describe their relationship. Just as Solara was not Carnegie's daughter, Claudia isn't Carnegie's wife. However, I won't make the edit until someone else gives some more input to this. Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:28, 23 February 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)

Wrong song genre?

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)

That song is not modern - it is the late 70's disco hit Ring My Bell by Frederick Knight sung by Anita Ward

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The world need a new film rating system: Over-Christianity (OC)

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)

See above - not a Christian film according to Washington and the Hughes Brothers

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This movie is about as much of a "Christian" film as Legion is... Spartan198 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot

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)

I've reverted it back to the shorter version, there was a bunch of unnecessary extra detailing added in this edit, like what type of battery he used to charge his iPod. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 08:39, 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)

George and Martha

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)