Talk:The Book of Eli/Archive 2

A Boy and his Dog

In the scenes where Eli is in his room in that town, you can see a movie poster on the wall for A Boy and His Dog, which is another movie set in a post-apocalyptic Earth. Should it be mentioned in a cultural references section, or something? Seems like an intentional homage to me. Canine virtuoso (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

cast of characters

Can we add the full cast of characters here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphapeta (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

...are they all notable to the movie? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

At one point there was a cast list but since all of the characters were listed and actors linked in the plot it was removed for redundancy. If we've got some sources with real world info about the cast we could probably add a section back in. Stuff about casting (were other actors considered for certain parts), character portrayal (I usually see this come from writers, directors or the actors, themselves; academic papers can work if there are any out there), characters being based on other iconic roles: that's the sort of stuff we'd want. I'm sure there's other things I'm not thinking of but hopefully you get the idea. Millahnna (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Solara: ghost?

The article says Solara was a ghost - WTF? Her fading away probably was just done to show that she left on her own journey. This theory of her begin a ghost also conflicts with the other stuff that happens to her in the movie. 41.146.106.95 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, where? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

nvm ... I see where it was added by an anonymous user, then removed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Music: Once Upon a Time in America

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia. But didn't anyone notice that in the movie they keep whistling the music played in "Once Upon a Time in America" from Ennio Morricone? That gives me vibes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.203.147 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

As the lede is currently written, it says that Eli "is charged with" carrying the book west, but since we do not specify who or what charged him with that duty, the sentence is unclear and vague. In the movie, Eli states that a voice spoke to him and told him to carry the book west. Since this is the central and sole reason given for all of the action in the film, I believe it's important to include it in the lede's plot summary. Therefore, I'd like to change "is charged with delivering" to "is told by a voice to deliver". Since I attempted to make this change already, I understand there is at least one objection. What do other editors think? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Production Notes

The production notes can be found here (PDF). —Mike Allen 02:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Apocalypse

Although it seems obvious to me and many others, not all who have seen the movie would have agreed it was nuclear. Here at WP, in articles, such as List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction and List of nuclear holocaust fiction, editors have removed it from inclusion and argued the fact that the movie didn't spell it out. I had to search a good bit to find that reliable reference (from the writer himself no less) and had almost missed it. Internet searches turned up all sorts of arguments as to what had "really" happened - the Rapture, aliens, solar flare, etc. So I think it is important to have it somewhere in the article.

Giroux, Jack (18 January 2010). "Interview: Part 1 Gary Whitta on 'The Book of Eli'". The Film Stage. Retrieved 11 March 2011.

MartinezMD (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this from the article for now, the reference was removed and this is not actually stated in the movie itself. It should be either sourced or not in the plot section as it is not backed by the primary source, the movie itself. There is actually nothing wrong with references in the plot, but they are usually, when describing what happens in the movie, not needed. In this case this info would require a source, or not be in the plot section at all. See WP:FILMPLOT for more info. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a reference being noted in the plot description. Another editor was the one to remove it. I'll put that back too.MartinezMD (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Plots don't need refs. The word "event" was changed to "apocalypse" and if the ref is being used to justify the change or stop a reversion then it isn't needed. Should someone (in say a months time) change it to "event" then it can be reverted and they can be directed her to look at the ref. At this point three editors are happy with "apocalypse" over "event", regardless of a ref that qualifies as consensus, which is more important than any reference. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference is to support the specific type of apocalypse - nuclear (see my prior statement mentioning the other types suggested on internet searches). If it isn't somewhere in the article, a future editor may come along in the future and remove it saying it isn't in the movie even though many (most?) would say it is obvious. Then this talk page discussion become the only source, which isn't the correct place to keep references. MartinezMD (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've changed it to the really vague "Thirty years after an event" (and maybe "Thirty years after" should be removed as well, is that in the movie?) the movie is explicitly vague about this. It doesn't mention nuclear or apocalypse so that does require a secondary source if it is included in the plot. The "plot doesn't need refs" only applies to the primary source, the movie itself. If it's not in the movie it doesn't fall under that guideline. The no refs for plot is because putting the movie itself as a reference is redundant as that's what the entire article is about, this is the primary source. Secondary sources are needed in some cases. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Though if all of us are fine with the current wording then no secondary source is needed because consensus would rule. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT

"Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section."

and since there's already some difference of opinion, I am putting "nuclear" back in as well as the source. Since any of us could leave WP tomorrow, or in some way not be available for consultation, our personal consensus may not enough to survive a future edit without an appropriate backing. If this is such a major issue, we can ask for third party mediation, but that seems a bit excessive for the addition of a well-sourced adjective.MartinezMD (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot importance

I'm a bit confused by the judgment that Eli's stated reason for his determination in his mission is unimportant to the plot — or at least by how that judgment is being made relative to other items in the plot summary. How can Eli's stated reason for delivering the book be less important to the plot than Carnegie's stated reason for taking it? And how can Eli's stated reason (which is therefore basically the primary reason for the whole story) be less important to the plot than items like "Claudia gives Eli food and water", "Solara leads Eli to the town water supply" and "Eli goes across the street to get his MP3 player". Mwelch (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Eli's motives and actions are clearly divinely inspired and guided. I would however not want to see the plot description turn into an opportunity for preaching, so it should be done in a neutral manner.MartinezMD (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it's more that Eli THINKS he is receiving divine inspiration. But I do agree that it warrants at least a mention. Millahnna (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A blind guy that can "see" all around him and outshoot and chop up multiple armed men isn't supernatural? If a reliable source is required and we can't find one, it should fair enough to bring up Eli's stated motivations and then the subsequent incredible actions if needed. The readers can then draw their own conclusion. MartinezMD (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then, how to you propose to phrase it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent revision that I thought was pretty close, then someone reverted it. I think portions can be reinstated and toned down a little. I don't know how good a job I would do at it. more importantly, I'd hate to go to the effort only to have it nixed, so we discuss first.MartinezMD (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the recent revision to which you refer. The fact that it was reverted, with the reason for the reversion being given as "not really important to the plot", is why I decided to start up discussion here. I disagree strongly with the judgment that it's not important enough to mention in the plot summary. But I'm not a writer by trade, so I'm by no means married to my particular wording and would welcome an editorial consensus in revising it here to a state suitable for inclusion in the article. What I wrote was:

Eli explains to her the nature of his journey. According to Eli, his book is the last remaining copy of the Bible, as all other copies were sought out and burned following the nuclear war. He says that he found the book amid some rubble, having been led to it by a voice in his head, which then directed him to travel westward with the book to a place where it would be safe. The voice assured him that he would be protected against any and all enemies and obstacles that might try to prevent him from completing his task. Thus, for the ensuing thirty years, he has been walking westward with the book, guided by his unwavering faith.

I did try to write it with the tone of "This is what Eli says" (e.g. "According to Eli ..." and "He says that..."), as opposed to outright telling the reader that "This is so", which I agree would not be appropriate. As MartinezMD says above, what is important is what Eli says he believes and how strongly he holds that conviction personally, not dictating to the reader the correctness or incorrectness of that belief. I welcome editorial input from others on improved wording that would achieve that aim more exactly. Mwelch (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Eli explains to her the nature of his journey. According to Eli, his book is the last remaining copy of the Bible, as all other copies were destroyed following the nuclear war. He says he was led to the book by a voice in his head, which then directed him to travel westward to a place where it would be safe. The voice assured him that he would be protected on his journey. Thus, for the last thirty years he has traveled west, guided by his faith.

Still essentially the same content but a little shorter and cleaner (in a plot that borders on long this seems wise). Honestly I think it could still be trimmed further.Millahnna (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Putting that in would have my vote.MartinezMD (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it too. I just put it in. If editors think of wording that would tighten it further, they can of course edit it there within the article. Mwelch (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tanakh

The article stated incorrectly that the knew KJV is placed alongside the Torah. I corrected this to state that it is placed alongside the Tanakh. I was reverted. Why? I am improving the encyclopedia, not vandalizing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to revert your edits, but I thought in the movie it was the Torah, not the complete Tanakh, that they had. I might be mistaken.MartinezMD (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I recently watched it and in the movie it says "Tanakh," at least, that is what it looked like. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...we've had this edit war long before, and a WP:CONSENSUS version was finally reached. "I think" cannot over-ride that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain your "consensus." In the film, it is the Tanakh, not the Torah. This is not a matter of interpretation. Please explain how you reached a consensus that a book with the word "Tanakh" on the spine should be refered to as the "Torah?" You actually had an edit war over "Tanakh" in the past? Please tell me what evidence as provided to support this odd claim that it is the "Torah?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read through this page and the archived talk page. I see no discussion concerning "Torah or Tanakh" and I see no consensus at all reached on this question. Bwilkins, where is this so-called discussion of Torah versus Tanakh? It is not in the archived talk. Are you making this up? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice WP:AGF there. You'd have to go through the history of the article where the Torah/Tanakh edit-wars happened. If you can prove it, then please include it - I'm always happy to have the correct info. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through the archived talk page and found no discussion. Consensus occurs through discussion. If no one ever provided an argument for calling it "Torah," then what am I supposed to respond to.

You need to AGF. I am an experienced editor and I made a change to the article to correct a mistake. I was reverted without any discussion. You tell me there is a consensus, but I do not see any section of this talk page or the archived talk page that shows any consensus for "Torah" over "Tanakh." I also reviewed the entire edit history of the article and found no edit summaries with "Torah" or "Tanakh" in them, so why don't you act in good faith and tell me where this phantom discussion/debate took place? I am really looking forward to your explaining how a consensus was reached without any actual discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I know you're an experience editor. I know your skillset. Stop fighting when we're actually on the same side. You also know full well that "stability" after an edit war means that a version of consensus has been reached - correctly or not. As I said, there was never discussion that I recall. You'll notice that I didn't really get involved in the last series of edit war on either side, lest I start pushing the WP:WRONGVERSION. All I ever suggested was to just source it so that we don't have to have back and forth again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You were not the editor who reverted me twice, without explanation; I was reacting as much to that. The source is the film itself. I assume that this is the source for most of the contents of the article. I assume it is the source for the reference to the Qu'ran, which is not otherwise sourced. "Torah" was not sourced either. You suggested that there was a conflict over this issue and consensus had been reached and I repeat: I see no evidence of any discussion and my edit cannot be construed as being "against consensus." We routinely correct and add material to articles. I corrected a mistake. I was reverted with no justification. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the movie a second time. To the left of the KJV is a copy of the Torah, and immediately to the left of that is a copy of the Tanakh. I will correct the article accordingly - the KJV is immediately between the Qu'ran and the Torah, but given the significance of the Tanakh (which I noticed more, because it is a larger book and sticks out on the shelf more) it has to be mentioned. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fallout 3

Is it just me or does this movie bear a strong resemblence to the game fallout 3, it has raiders, cannibals, destroyed overpasses, Alcatrez sort of reminds me of the Arlington library were they are trying to recover books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.66.152 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of post-apocalypse fiction has these elements. It's not unique to any one work.MartinezMD (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

I am a fallout 3 fanboi and an apocalypse movie fan. When I first saw the movie, I was very much of the opinion that it's visual reference was the FO3 game. This is based on a number of factors, the first being the lighting and washed out colours. There are various other factors such as the way the characters and indeed factions all dress. At first I thought is was the movie version of FO3 (there is a trailer on youtube called the fallout movie) but I think it is just a case of the director liking the general feel of the fallout game and reflecting that in the movie. Even so, it may be worth mentioning it in the article. 82.40.52.144 (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)junior1138

You are responding to a comment from 2.5 years ago. The passing similarity to a video game is not noteworthy. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Eli's mp3

Can someone tell what mp3-player does Eli have? (A man asked this question at a forum, and I want to help him.)

Why do I always think it was an early generation iPod ...? ES&L 08:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)