Talk:K-PAX (film)

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

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Frauley, Jon (2010). "Pathology, Power, and Medicalization in K-PAX". Criminology, Deviance, and the Silver Screen: The Fictional Reality and the Criminological Imagination. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0230615163.

K-PAX ending[edit]

surpried no one mentioned the ending after the credits.. guess I'll add it ;) Jeydo (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about K-PAX[edit]

there needs to be more on what 'Prot' describes as K-PAX

Comedy? How?[edit]

I fail to see how anybody could label this film as a comedy. It doesn't even really have a happy ending. Liquidus219 15:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)liquidus219[reply]

Have you ever heard of a comedy of manners? Does Life of Brian have a happy ending? Is it a comedy? Not all comedy has to make you laugh. It doesn't even have to have a laugh track.Greglocock 12:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a comedy and you can not compare Life of Brian which was written and performed by comedians to this. K-Pax is in no way a comedy--67.86.120.246 (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has a happy ending. Prot goes back to K-Pax. Not so happy for Robert, but Prot and the patients he was able to help have a happy ending. It's certainly not a tragedy. I guess you can interpret it as Robert being delusional, but that ambiguity is what makes this an intriguing film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.20.231 (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from Book[edit]

Does anyone know enough about the film and the first book to be able to outline the key differences in content, message and tone? Mnbf9rca 23:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hombre mirando al sudeste[edit]

Put this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.231.225 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style/I don't know[edit]

Why does the article say about a mental patient who claims he is an alien, when it could just as easily be an alien who has taken human form, and is considered by many to in reality be human? The film offers both explanations and in any case the latter is considered to be the appropriate interpretation. --Ouro 19:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "mental patient" is entirely accurate, as he is in a mental facility. Likewise he does claim to be an alien. Whether his claim is true, or whether he is actually mentally ill, is the question. No firm answer is given during the film, so how can there by an "appropriate interpretation"? -- Supermorff 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A firm answer IS given during the movie, I believe. The young woman who 'has no home', I forgot her name, disappears about the same time that Prot 'leaves'. My impression during the film was that in order to save his friend Robert's life, he used his knowledge and light-travel to inhabit Robert's body. I was led to suspect this when the young speechless woman states to Prot 'I know who you are. You're the bluebird.', as if Prot had inhabited the bird's body.
I'm inclined to agree with you, nameless poster, however if you listen to any commentary by any of the cast and crew they'll insist that they left the matter open so that the audience could decide for themselves. -- Supermorff 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they really wanted ambiguity, they shouldn't have given Prot all his super power, he is stronger then a normal person, can see a different light spectrum then a human, out-smarts a few astrophysicists, doesn't rect to medicine as a normal human, heals a bunch of other patiences in the clinic, leaves clinic when he wants, causes security monitors to buzz out when he light-travels and plenty of other stuff, none of this would be explainable if he was just human. Now the exact relationship between Prot and Robert Porter isn't explained in depth (most likly something along the lines of Prot possesing Robert after he had attempted suicide), but there can be no doubt that something non-human was involved, the movie really doesn't leave room for that. -- 83.135.228.96 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they take great pains to give alternate explanations to all these things you've mentioned throughout the movie (except being "stronger than a normal person", which I saw no evidence for in the first place). Personally I think for all these explanations to be valid is far too much of a coincidence, and that the alien explanation holds more weight, but the other explanations do exist. The characters even cite exaplmes of people who can, for example, see ultraviolet light, or who react strangely to certain anti-psychotic drugs. So yes, there is certainly room for it, just not very much. -- Supermorff 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then nameless poster here are a few things from the film that will twist your noggin, If John Porter was possessed by a being from K-Pax then; Why as prot is he afraid of water? Why does his utopian planet not have any families? (prehaps because John Porters family was killed) and finally why when under regression as John Porter does he talk about his friend who is interested in Astronomy -- Another Unnamed Poster 12:22, 04 December 2006 (UTC)

Prot's character helps people. It is through the narrative of the life of the person he possessed that he helps the doctor become closer to his own family. Dropping the pencil was on purpose. This was shown when towards the end of the movie Prot saw the yearbook on the doctor's desk as he was about to leave. Since the doctor had not mentioned the truth about Robert's past he prompted him by asking if he could borrow a pencil. In other words, why does Prot seem to be a personality that emerges under duress? Affect. Nina124.170.151.71 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From beginning to end the movie purposefully leads the veiwer to believe that prot is indeed who he claims to be. The rest is thrown in to give you enough reason to doubt it, to make the question interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.86.51 (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is based on "Hombre mirando al Sudeste" a 1986 argentinian movie, directed by Eliseo Subiela. I tried to add this "detail" to the article but it has been erased...

That is horrible, unnamed user! I have reinserted the detail you added... Some motherfucker will delete it again, but who cares? I have thus put my protest on record. The beginning of the end of wikipedia began long ago ... It's not going to take very long for it to die. That is, something called wikipedia might continue to exist, but only redneck yanks will read it or contribute to it. Jimbo Wales and his gang are getting more and more exposed, even in the reactionaly press...

This film narrates the phenomenon of what is called a "walk-in". This is defined as an extra-terrestrial who takes host or inhabits a person's body. There is usually a contract or agreement ahead of time for this to happen...it's not something that normally happens against one's will. The purpose oftentimes is so that the "walk-in" can experience what he needs to on this plane. Oftentimes they are helping to balance out karma. Spiritualist believe that we all have "guides" who walk with us in spirit, and some of these entities may in fact be extra-terrestrial. Although K-Pax does not make specific reference to this phenomenon as it relates to it's story, there is much written about "walk ins", and it is not difficult to see the similarities. Ruth Montgomery is one author who speaks of this in "Strangers Among Us." BlueEgyptian5@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.54.195 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

f(r)ames![edit]

  • First I think that there is no question, whether the prot figure is an alien or a mental disease, because the frames of medicine dates are real and the story he tells is imginative. Hidden and visible frames in this film are remarcable! Tensefull and epic either.The figure of the doctor psycho is acting on "Bollas" [ contacting communicativ to a client with sympathy and not in a cognition case] and therefore the question, which moves the players is, if it#s possible that prot is from K-Pax.It's a game which developes humanity and strange solutions.I guess he is hiding his trauma in playing the man from a far planet. For thriller reasons by revealing prots bgrd., there is the possibility in he himself murders his wife and girl. "Killing pigs" might be a code for this action! and his reaction on water [ above ]

the tank for pschychy trust, is a hint for his own deed.May be thinking on stories is in WIKI!--Danaide (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[ Fromm"][reply]

Link to official Website[edit]

Why don't include a link to www.k-pax.com? --77.128.43.102 15:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kpax.jpg[edit]

Image:Kpax.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

There is a major argentinean film "Hombre mirando al sudeste" (1986) by film director Eliseo Subiela http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091214/, can any one point at references of this film and the issues arising from obvious similarities in the 1986-film and the novel and film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.93.112 (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I tought it was a re-make of "Hombre mirando al Sudeste". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.100.213 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. This is definitely a remake of the movie "The Man Facing Southeast" made in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.250.169 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But don't they plagiarize the common religious story of a guy purported to be the son of god?2003:CA:3F18:4668:DCA5:3386:E0AE:846B (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize "prot" or Not??[edit]

The first paragraph states that prot should not be capitalized, then uses it that way, but the second section capitalizes it like a normal name. Well, which way is it? 165.129.2.15 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A convention explicitly used in the book and carried over into the movie indicates that K-PAXians only use capital letters in reference to things like stars and planets. So "prot" is the correct capitalization of his name and "EARTH" is the correct capitalization of this planet.Nektig (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Wikipedia. See WP:CAPS and related pages. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??? If, in the context of the story, the character Kevin Spacey is playing insists his name be spelled with no capital letters, then it is appropiate to write it out as 'prot'. Lots42 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the bracketed note about the name. This is the English Wikipedia, and not an encyclopedia written in K-PAXian. If you wish, you may add the particular detail about the literature's lore, and other customs of the fictional world of K-PAX somewhere else in the article as an interesting fact. However on the English Wikipedia we follow the rules of the English language and not always the native language of the subject matter. For example, we spell Rome with an 'e' when the Italians spell it with an 'a'. In science fiction, the article about Klingons is not written in Klingon. On another note, though far less relevant than the above, the IMDB spells his name with a capital. Mkdwtalk 10:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: There are no "rules of the English language", there are only conventions; and those conventions differ with different variations of English.

There are several English-speaking Earthlings who choose not to use capitals in their name (k.d. lang amongst them), and if prot decides to do the same thing, then he should be free to do so without the interference of the self proclaimed grammar police.  :) 68.228.208.191 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - yah and if K.D. Lang wants to say her name is pronounced Wah-Nee-Poh it would still be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitrightthefirsttime (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Completely Resistant" wording on Thorazine[edit]

If one is "completely resistant" to the effects of a drug, do we not say that they are immune to it? Would we reword it to say that Thorazine has no effect?

I ask this mainly because i haven't seen this film in over a decade -- no real desire to rewatch it (sort of put off by Spacey), but the wording caught me as weird. Maybe someone who has seen it more recently can correct this.

Gushi (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K-PAX_(film)&oldid=1201610826"