Was Knowing biblical or scientific? HEAVY SPOILERS!!

[spacemonkey]

LET IT BE CLEARLY STATED THAT THIS THREAD CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS AND SHOULD BE READ ONLY BY THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE FILM OR DONT CARE ABOUT READING SPOILERS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Knowingposter08.jpg

I got through watching Knowing a couple of days ago and was actually quite pleased with it. I held myself from watching it because Nicolas Cage was in it, and he has done nothing but shit recently.

But, because so many of my friends told me not to underestimate the film, I decided out of curiosity alone to see what all the hoopla was about. I was pleasently surprised!

Another oNe of the reasons I wasnt so interested in seeing this movie was because I was dissapointed with Alex Proyas I-Robot, in my opinion he sold his soul to hollywood and I got the feeling we were only going to see big budget hollywood films from Proyas, as opposed to his darker and more gothic films of the past, like The Crow and Dark Days, which I love . Also, I thought the film was going to be another one of those silly thrillers like Number 23, with Jim Carry. Im so over those kind of films, surprisingly, this one didnt linger so much on the whole numerical angle of things. So this is why I was so reluctant to see Knowing, I mean, Cage is a big budget hollywood actor (most of the time) that has been making nothing but bad films as of late, and the whole film had this Hollywood summer movie aura to it. And it is, theres no doubt that thats exactly what this movie is. But its also a satasfying summer blockbuster. I was amazed with its thematic edginess.

By the way, I thought the special effects were mind blowing. Top notch stuff. I mean, the catastrophes are really amazing! The plane crash, the subway scene...I mean these are the kinds of scenes that leave your jaw on the floor. If you wont watch the movie because of Cage, then watch it because of its amazing effects. The end of the world scenes....WOW!

The story itself was so interesting, I had no idea it mixed the biblical with the scientific the way it did! And in my opinion, it handled it very well. It handled the subject matter so ambiguously, that in my opinion, both the anti-religious and religious person could enjoy the film.

Im guessing the way you see this film, depends on what you believe in.

Me? I obviously leaned towards the scientific side. Heres why:

1- The alien spaceships - In this movie, aliens come down from the cosmos on spaceships to save two humans so humanity can start over again. Their ships look mechanical in nature, and made of some form of metal or something. Biblical angels move about with their wings, without the need of spaceships.

2- When the kids are whisked away to another world, to start life a new, we see them in an alien planet. We know this because the plants in this planet are defenetly NOT earthlike. They look like some weird alien plant life. There are white trees, the grass looks alive. Yes, these scenes are obviously meant to visually evoke the biblical adam and eve running around in a new eden. But its not because these kids are running around in an alien planet, again referencing the scientific side of things.

http://media.movieweb.com/img/w/f/i/PHcHEddeE9Uwfi_m.jpg
Aliens? or Angels? Things that make you go hmm...

3- The alien spaceships that we seen in the film are meant to look like "The Chariot of God" from the biblical book of Ezekiel. The bible explains that god sits on this chariot that has wheels within wheels. You actually get to see a drawing of it on the movie. According to the bible, this is supposed to be gods personal car or something, he moves about the Cosmos with it (not lying this is what the bible says!) Now in the film, we get to see an alien spaceship, and the ship has wheels within wheels. What this is trying to say is that maybe Ezekiel really saw alien spaceships when he wrote that book, and thought he was seeing angels when in fact he was seeing alien spaceships? He apparently didnt fully understand what he was seeing so he immediately gave it some sort of holy interpretation? This is something that has been addressed before during the sixties, when a book called "The Chariot of the Gods" by Erich Von Danicken addressed the exact same theme. Im guessing the writers of this movie read Danickens book and were inspired by it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Chariots_Of_The_Gods.jpg

4- Also, the way in which the catastrophes in the movies are predicted is scientific in nature. Numbers, math, coordinates...all scientific in nature.

http://media.movieweb.com/img/1/g/d/PHdaceefYWi1gd_m.jpg

Another thing...did anyone notice how much Close Encounters of the Third Kind influenced this movie? The whole ending with the extremely colorful alien spaceship, with the diamond like structure resembled the alien spaceship in the last sequences of Close Encounters. The way I saw it, Alex Proyas was making a visual reference here to the Spielberg movie. In fact, some of the scenes where the kid first encounters the aliens in his house reminded me a whole lot of those scenes when the little kid in Close Encounters gets kidnapped by the aliens. Again, in this way, the film is saying in an indirect way these are aliens, not angels.

Anyhows, what did you guys think about the interpretations of this film? Was it biblical for you, or scientific?

[spacemonkey]

Come on guys, not a single comment?

[God of War]

Well, I don't have much input. Except to say that I just saw this movie last week on dvd. And the ending left me feeling very distressed. Angels, Demons. God, prophecy and the end of this world. It seems to be a common theme these days in films. But Knowing left me feeling very uneasy. Anyways, to answer your question. I feel it's more biblical than anything. Not sure about the whole numbers thing, which was very well done I thought. As for Cage. I used to like him, but he's annoying nowadays. lol. Oh, and the whole thing about the sun is BS. Our sun will never die. Not in a billion years.

[spacemonkey]

And the ending left me feeling very distressed. Angels, Demons. God, prophecy and the end of this world. It seems to be a common theme these days in films.

YEah, "the end of the world" theme is common these days, mainly cause things are so fucked up in the world economically that everyone thinks the biblical end of the world is at hand. I bet the people going through the great depression in the 30s all felt the same.

But Knowing left me feeling very uneasy. Anyways, to answer your question. I feel it's more biblical than anything.

So you felt that the strange dudes dressed in black were angels coming to gather two human specimens, and that the ship in the ending was gods chariot, and that god was inside it. I just noticed, this theme is very similar to The Day the Earth Stood Still, in fact, its almost the same damn movie! The aliens are taking away certain animal specimens, and some humans, because they want to destroy the earth cause humans have fucked it up beyond recognition. I guess you could say that the recent The Day the Earth Stood Still is the same movie, but without the biblical undertones. And in my opinion, Knowing was a much better film.

Not sure about the whole numbers thing, which was very well done I thought. As for Cage. I used to like him, but he's annoying nowadays. lol.

I agree, he needs to do something to regain his respect as an actor. Something that will remind everybody that he is the same guy from Adaptation, Raising Arizona, Moonstruck, Leaving Las Vegas...

Oh, and the whole thing about the sun is BS. Our sun will never die. Not in a billion years.

But the sun doesnt burn out in the movie, its the other way around, it becomes so powerful that a sun flare comes out of it and burns the earth.

[soulcollector64]

I saw this last month and I never picked up upon any "religious" overtones in the film. It's really more Science Fiction/Supernatural in the sense of the predictions and the aliens. Strangely after the film was done I felt depressed after watching it. But the good news? Back in '03 we got hit by the strongest kind of solar flares, so... we're good. But I thought that Knowing was a decent film. Best part personally was the plane crash. I'm actually surprised they got away with that in a PG-13 film. Some brutal shit there.

[spacemonkey]

I saw this last month and I never picked up upon any "religious" overtones in the film.

You didnt? They were all over the place.

1- The scene where Cage is talking to his kid about his dead wife and the kid questions him about heaven, "you dont even believe in heaven"

2- The philosophical conversations that Cage's character gives in his classroom during one of his lectures about the origins of the universe and saying that if everything was so random, and nothing had any ulterior purpose or meaning, that it would be very sad.

3- Cage's characters father in the film is a religious person, who doesnt talk to his son because he doesnt believe in god.

4- The explenations they get into about "gods chariot" this is the picture they show of it:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/spacemonkey_fg/chariot5.jpg

5- The aliens resemble angels or spirits. They are invisible, and have things behind their backs that could be mistaken for wings.

6- The spaceship has wheels within wheels, and at certain point, the circles form the shape of an eye. Just like the descriptions in the bible of gods chariot where the wheels within wheels have eyes on them.

7- The two little kids taken to "save" humanity, they resemble adam and eve, and are left in a "paradise" on another planet, they are last seen running towards a white tree, Im sure that was meant to evoke "the tree of knowledge" from the bible, which Adam and Eve were not suppose to eat from. I found it ironic that in the ending of the movie, the two kids were running straight for the tree! :)

8- And lets not forget the whole "end of the world" angle which can also be found very promenently in the bible.

[Silverload]

I love Knowing, and I think that it is one of the most underrated films of this decade.

Knowing puts a smart sci-fi spin on religion. Our perception of angels & God is that of magic, and Knowing shows a different perception of the same thing. The energy beings at the end are meant to be both angels & aliens. This film took away the "magical" element of the angel, and replaced it with a more pseudo-scientific element. Alex Proyas does this without being condescending towards religion or the viewer (which, in my opinion, is a hard thing to do with the subject matter). And on top of that this film manages to be an intense thriller (the plane crash scene was breathtaking).

I saw this last month and I never picked up upon any "religious" overtones in the film.

Are you sure that you watched Knowing? :D

[spacemonkey]

Hey Silverload, did you notice any similarities with Close Encounters of the Third Kind? I noticed them right away, Proyas was bowing down to Spielberg with this movie.

[Cronos]

Jesus was a spaceman.

[Danger^Cart]

I thought it was pretty obvious. Aliens, not God, are responsible for the survival of humanity in a possibly countless cycle of destruction and rebirth.

Didn't really like the movie, LOVED the last 10 minutes.

[spacemonkey]

Thats your take on it. I have spoken to some people about the movie, and they swear that it was God descending on that ship (the blinding flash of light coming from the interior of the ship) and that his angels came out of the ship and took the kids away...

You see, according to the bible, theres four angels with god on that chariot. The angels have the face of an eagle, a lion, a bull and a man...and they each have three pairs of wings.

Interesting thing about this Chariot of God thing is that different religions across time have the same God Chariot thing infused into their mythology.

[Silverload]

I thought it was pretty obvious. Aliens, not God, are responsible for the survival of humanity in a possibly countless cycle of destruction and rebirth.

I thought this film was very clear in the biblical connection that these aliens/angels had. The aliens are God, and this film challenged our ancient view of what God is. These beings were shown as the guiding force in our existence (and maybe more). They physically looked like angels, they created prophets (even forewarned of specific character deaths), created Adam & Eve II, etc...

Hey Silverload, did you notice any similarities with Close Encounters of the Third Kind? I noticed them right away, Proyas was bowing down to Spielberg with this movie.

I don't know if Proyas did this on purpose. Close Encounters was a very impactful film, and forever burned its visuals into the audience's mind. I think it would be impossible to make an alien encounter scene without conjuring the memory of Close Encounters.

[ericdraven]

I think the whole ending showed that there are beings, not A Being. but I still belive in that there is a powerful force that runs the universe. I will call it a God. But that whole movie was like "OMG ALIENS EXIST LOLZ."

[Badbird]

When reading about people's reactions to the movie, most seem automatically think they were aliens.

I instantly thought they were angels. When they took on their true form, there were faint contrails behind them that took the shape of wings. Also, when they told the girl that her dead mother was "okay," that pretty much said they meant she was in heaven, or some kind of afterlife. Plus the specific biblical events listed above.

It was basically another Noah's ark, only this time the world was destroyed by fire, not water.

It could go either way. Maybe they were aliens all along, yet people who saw them assumed they were angels. Or they were angels, but resemble what most people think aliens look like.

However, essentially confirming that there is an afterlife puts it firmly in the biblical category for me. But that creates more problems for me.

That would mean that this was a plan all along, so why is god such a dick? Does he think humanity will get it right a third time? And why would he be mad at humanity since he was the one who gave them free will? Andy why did the angels have to be so god damn cryptic about everything they did, and why did they wait until nearly the last minute to perform their task?

I know it makes for a better movie, but the end of this movie has some pretty big problems on both a cinematic level and philosophical level.

[ericdraven]

I didn't know that Angels flew in spaceships.

[soulcollector64]

I watched Push before Knowing and it made me feel a little tired so maybe when I watched it I was mostly on autopilot. It happens.:p

[Badbird]

I didn't know that Angels flew in spaceships.

The spaceships were arks for the people/animals they transplanted.

[Tagia_Romero]

First of all, I confess I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. By no means a centennial classic for the ages, but certainly highly entertaining.

Secondly, in regards to the notion that the movie is biblical or scientific, the religious tones are quite obvious, but rather than having 'God' (whatever than may be) visit the Earth for the Second Coming as stated in the Bible, that entity is replaced by what could be considered pagan beings (and we all know how much the Bible LOVES those types). Also, while it may seem unlikely now, the destruction of the Earth will have to come sometime and the ultimate fate that was shown in the movie may just happen in reality too, though we can't be certain at present.
While every adult human being was effectively marked for death, they found it appropriate to let Cage's character know that his child would be safe, which is something he took solace in even when he was spending the remainder of his life with his family.

We all know the Bible tends to exaggerate matters as well- if there is going to be a Second Coming, what if it's not going to be the Christian Ragnarok that the Bible makes it out to be, but something perhaps more quiet, subtle and secretive? Sure, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that doesn't mean it won't happen because we don't have any evidence to prove that it will be a widely-felt event.

[spacemonkey]

I don't know if Proyas did this on purpose. Close Encounters was a very impactful film, and forever burned its visuals into the audience's mind. I think it would be impossible to make an alien encounter scene without conjuring the memory of Close Encounters.

Yeah, but I thougth the visual references where really obvious though, they immediately made me think Proyas was sucking Spielbergs dick. The ship was different (more crystal like in look) but echoed visually the last sequences, specifically the long crystals reminded me of the long metal spikes of the ship in Close Encounters. Even the shot itself, Proyas shot that scene almost exactly like Close Encounters. The aliens even take somebody with them just like in Spielbergs film!

There are also some scenes that have the aliens coming into the house looking for the kids that echoed those scenes in which the little kid is kidnapped in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

[spacemonkey]

It could go either way. Maybe they were aliens all along, yet people who saw them assumed they were angels. Or they were angels, but resemble what most people think aliens look like.

This is why I say that your interpretation of this film will depend on what you believe in. Christians will think they were angels, non believers will think they were aliens. I think the film was purposely constructed this way to satasfy both sides of the equation.

That would mean that this was a plan all along, so why is god such a dick? Does he think humanity will get it right a third time?

Well, he has done it before. In the story of Noah he basically said "things are too fucked up, lets start this shit all over again! And Im only keeping Noah and his family, cause they are they only good people on this earth!" Giving humanity a second chance to prove themselves worthy of living on earth. I guess the "coming apocalypse" prophesized in the bible is god giving humans a third chance...you know what they say, third times the charm?

And why would he be mad at humanity since he was the one who gave them free will?

Its like, "do what you want, but you better do what I want you to do...or else!"

Andy why did the angels have to be so god damn cryptic about everything they did, and why did they wait until nearly the last minute to perform their task?

That was simply to make the movie more mysterious, exciting and suspensful.

[spacemonkey]

Also, while it may seem unlikely now, the destruction of the Earth will have to come sometime and the ultimate fate that was shown in the movie may just happen in reality too, though we can't be certain at present

The way I see it, everyone always thinks the world is going to end in their lifetime. Ive personally met people who have died believing that the end of the world is "right around the corner" and that gods day of judgement is at hand and all that hoopla.

I lean more towards a meteorite hitting our planet and wiping the grand majority of humans out of existense, like in Aurthur C. Clarkes The Hammer of God, or in the films that ripped of his book. Mainly Armageddon and Deep Impact.

And then humanity would divert back to the prehistoric times, turning into animals only living for survival...and thats a preatty cool idea for a movie, I gotta write this shit down..

[Danger^Cart]

@BadBird

If I recall correctly they mention a few times that the children must come of their own free will. I think this falls under the whole, "you must choose to be saved," principle in most faiths.

[QUENTIN]

While I don't think the film comes down unequivocally in one camp, I gotta say space, I think your arguments that you use to support your conclusion in fact more obviously support the opposite conclusion. It reminds me of people who insist Patrick Bateman really killed people then work backwards trying to justify a reaction that is not suggested by the picture.

Your first point, that the "aliens" come down in spaceships and aliens don't need spaceships ignores the fact you later address that this "spaceship" is exactly the vessel described in the Bible that serves as God's chariot. "Wheels within wheels" and all that, more on this later.

The ending is totally intentionally designed to invoke Adam and Eve, why do this if it's not meant to draw a clear parallel? The planet is "alien" in the sense that it is not Earth because Earth is destroyed, but I disagree that anything is intended to look especially other-worldly, the place is meant to be highly analogous to Earth but super beautiful, as Eden is always depicted since the Bible.

It seems highly odd and counterintuitive and like quite a stretch to suggest that a vehicle completely meant to resemble exactly what is described in the Bible as the way God and his minions make contact with humans on Earth is not a reference to the Bible, the most well-read, well-known book in human history, but rather a thoroughly discredited pseudo-scientific book of speculation from the 60s? You propose they must have read this book that fell out of favor more than 30 years ago and even the author admits was largely made up and were inspired by it, not by the most famous book ever that hundreds of millions of audience members would be far more familiar with? Ever heard of Occam's razor? To me, this is like saying a gangster movie about the Italian mafia that includes a decaptitated horse's head is referencing not The Godfather but Jane Austen's Mafia, an inexplicable and unlikely suggestion.

The suggestion that "numbers, math, coordinates" is scientific in nature is both spurious and simplistic. The Bible includes lots of numbers and, more than that, thousands of predictions about upcoming catastrophic events. It's like saying the movie is in English and the Bible's in Hebrew and Syrian Aramaic, so obviously the visitors are analogues for Germanic invaders of Britain rather than angels. Time is experienced linearly, places have coordinates, those aren't especially "scientific" concepts, how else would the movie less "scientifically" demonstrate a disaster is going to occur somewhere and some time Nic Cage would know about in advance? The "science" element of the film is that Nic Cage is a scientist who believes things are random and does not accept a higher power until he is forced by the higher power to do so. It's very much a religion-verus-arrogant modern science concept where religion wins in the end and man is damned to do anything about it.

Another major point is that the "aliens" have ethereal wings which are very much associated with angels and not really associated with aliens. And of course, as someone mentioned, it's essential that the little kid choose to go with the whisper people. What aliens have you ever heard of that require human beings to make their own choices freely about their fate? Seems just like the Christian concept of free will and the choice to accept God as your personal savior and live life in his service. Doesn't really make sense otherwise.

To me, besides all of the numerous direct references and borrowed imagery to the Bible and the Christian God, the biggest indicator these are angels and not aliens is the thematic point of the film and the protagonist's arc. His first speech is about how the world is random not designed and orchestrated by God, he is estranged from his minister father, his wife was deeply religious and would be ashamed of him raising his son in a secular manner, etc. Cage is given a ton of irreligious, atheistic traits that put him at odds with other people and cause him strife, over the course of the film he comes to relinquish doubt, believe wholeheartedly in this prophecy, trust the angelic "whisper people" in their Ezekelian transportation to benevolently take his son away, and in the end reunites with his minister father to ask forgiveness for the atheistic attitudes that have estranged him and join his family for what can be described most aptly as The Rapture.

I suppose one could suggest all of this stuff is really about how human beings mistook aliens for angels, which one must do if they conclude the whisper people are just aliens, and that addresses many of these issues but it requires straining for something other than the direct and obvious implications of the film and moreover renders the protagonist's arc and progression over the story and all the stuff about him being a nonbeliever surrounded by religious people moot, making his spiritual conversion an unrelated and unnecessary time filling tangent rather than the central theme as a main character's arc tends to be.

For the record, I'm agnostic, so my inclination would not be to assume the beings are angels to confirm my pre-existing beliefs, but I think that's the rather clear implication of the film.

For an interesting essay on the subject from Roger Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090322/COMMENTARY/903229997

And a longer discussion of the same subject between him and several readers: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/a_roll_of_whose_dice.html

[spacemonkey]

Whoa, quite a lenghty reply, thanks for taking your time Quentin!

Your first point, that the "aliens" come down in spaceships and aliens don't need spaceships ignores the fact you later address that this "spaceship" is exactly the vessel described in the Bible that serves as God's chariot. "Wheels within wheels" and all that, more on this later.

I suppose you meant that angels dont need spaceships, and this much is true in the bible, angels never appear using spaceships to travel the heavens. This Chariot of God is for God to transport himself, along with four special beings called the zoe, who are the ones driving the throne chariot.

But, heres the thing, lets say Ezekiel saw this alien ship coming down from the heavens, and he saw four aliens emerging, couldnt he have mistaken it for something holy in nature? Couldnt he have thought it was Gods chariot, and the aliens the zoe? It could very well have been that he saw something he didnt completely understand, and just assinged it a religious interpretation.

Not that I believe that any of what the bible said happened, Im just going with the logic of the movie.

But as you can see, the interpretation of the film could go either way.

The ending is totally intentionally designed to invoke Adam and Eve, why do this if it's not meant to draw a clear parallel? The planet is "alien" in the sense that it is not Earth because Earth is destroyed, but I disagree that anything is intended to look especially other-worldly, the place is meant to be highly analogous to Earth but super beautiful, as Eden is always depicted since the Bible.

Yes, only thing that if we are going to go by bible logic here (and Im assuming we are cause thats what this movie is about) then the whole thing about saving just two people is wrong, cause the bible doesnt say ANYWHERE that only two humans are going to be saved. Rather, it says that if you do good, follow gods rules and essentially live your life by the bible, that on that day of judgement you might be saved and not just the two kids. So there you see, that the film isnt really adhering to bible logic. The bible says anyone doing gods will can be saved, not just two kids.

It seems highly odd and counterintuitive and like quite a stretch to suggest that a vehicle completely meant to resemble exactly what is described in the Bible as the way God and his minions make contact with humans on Earth is not a reference to the Bible, the most well-read, well-known book in human history

I know thats what its meant to invoke in the film. But Im also saying that the film is trying to say that maybe what Ezekiel describes in the bible as the Chariot of God, was really just a spaceship. He describes it very well, but isnt it kind of silly to think that god, the all powerful being of the universe needs a chariot with wheels to move around and that he has four beings designated to drive it? I mean, isnt he all powerful?

It seems more plausible to me that what Ezekiel interpreted as the Chariot of God was really a spaceship and that the four beings were really aliens. Ezekiel not understanding what he saw, gave it a religious or holy interpretation, when in reality it could have been an alien spaceship. Thats what I thought the movie was really going for.

but rather a thoroughly discredited pseudo-scientific book of speculation from the 60s? You propose they must have read this book that fell out of favor more than 30 years ago and even the author admits was largely made up and were inspired by it, not by the most famous book ever that hundreds of millions of audience members would be far more familiar with?

What I was trying to say was that the filmmakers might have checked out that book and gotten inspired by it to write the movie (and of course they mustve read Ezekiel as well) since basically the film is playing with the same themes both books presents us with. Im not giving the points presented in the 30 year old book any validity, Im just saying the book has certain similarities with the film, I mean when you look at the two its quite obvious.

Ever heard of Occam's razor? To me, this is like saying a gangster movie about the Italian mafia that includes a decaptitated horse's head is referencing not The Godfather but Jane Austen's Mafia, an inexplicable and unlikely suggestion.

Occams Razor is a principle that states that "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Going by that principle, its more plausible, and even more believable for me that aliens are flying around in the cosmos on a spaceship studying us, then an all powerful being whos never had a beginning or an end, that he knows everything, that he needs a car to fly around the cosmos, and four guys to drive it for him (each of them having four faces, one of a ox, one of an eagle, one of a human and one of a lion) when in reality he is supposed to be all powerful.

Spaceships with aliens is the simpler and more plausible of the two.

The suggestion that "numbers, math, coordinates" is scientific in nature is both spurious and simplistic.

But its true.

The Bible includes lots of numbers and, more than that, thousands of predictions about upcoming catastrophic events.

True, but heres the interesting part. In the bible, it clearly states that NO ONE KNOWS WHEN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT IS COMING! (read: the end of the world, armageddon, ragnarok, what have you) Not even gods son knows when the day of judgment is comign. Check it out on Matthew 24:36 and onward.

So if the film as you say is supposed to be interpreted as if the prophecies in the bible about the end of the world are coming true, this is yet more proof that the film is actually NOT sticking to bible logic, but rather, a scientific one.

The characters in the film know the solar flare is going to destroy the planet because the aliens flying around the cosmos, with technology far superior then our own already know this is going to happen, and they want to save the human race by saving two of their kind.

Time is experienced linearly, places have coordinates, those aren't especially "scientific" concepts

Numbers and coordinates are not scientific? Really?

And on top of that, the bible never gives a specific date for the end of the world! No one knows that, according to the bible, not even Gods son Jesus knows this. Only God is supposed to know this, yet the movie tells us that god gives this knowledge to two children? Nope, it seems more plausible that the aliens decided to transmit this two the two kids they wanted to save.

How else would the movie less "scientifically" demonstrate a disaster is going to occur somewhere and some time Nic Cage would know about in advance?

Thats what Im trying to say, that the way in which humans were warned about the end of the world in the film was through science, through numbers, coordinates, dates. Math is supposed to be some sort of universal for of communication, this is an idea presented to us in the film Contact as well. Where the alien beings contacted us humans through math as well.

Now, to answer you question about less scientific ways of transmitting future events, when the bible warns of a future event it does so in a less scientific matter: through dreams and visions. You will see this all through out the bible, people are having dreams and visions all the time whenever God wants to talk to them. Many theologist say that what Ezekiel describes in his book was really a vision and not something to be taken literally, but this, as are many points in the bible, is open to debate.

The "science" element of the film is that Nic Cage is a scientist who believes things are random and does not accept a higher power until he is forced by the higher power to do so.

The way I see it, that higher power isnt necesarilly "God" but rather nature and its randomness, nature and its power. The Sun power to be precise. There is nothing to say that humanity wont be anhilated by something similar, like say a huge meteor that will split us in half, Earth is just a planet floating in the cosmos...and we are vulnerable to things like this happening, much the same way a hurricane can devastate a whole country.

Heres another question, if what was in the ship was god, and the creatures were angels, then why didnt they save all those christians that are doing his will on earth? See what I mean? The film isnt really sticking to bible logic. You mentioned the rapture in one of your comments, and thats exactly what should have occured had this movie been about the bible. But it wasnt. It was about aliens taking away two little kids. Therefore there was no saving of gods faithful in the film. Only the two kids that the aliens decided to save.

It's very much a religion-versus-arrogant modern science concept where religion wins in the end and man is damned to do anything about it.

I didnt see as religion winning really. To me it was the all powerful force of nature known as the sun which ended up anhilating the earth, it was nature vs. man. Nature is a force so powerful that not even the aliens, with all their technological knowledge could stop it. All they could do was try to save to humans so that the species could continue somewhere else in the universe. Thats really what the film was about to me. Humans being at the peril of nature and the randomness of it.

Another major point is that the "aliens" have ethereal wings which are very much associated with angels and not really associated with aliens.

Who says those were wings? And for that matter, who says aliens cant have wings? They could have been alien beings that have wings for all we know.

And of course, as someone mentioned, it's essential that the little kid choose to go with the whisper people. What aliens have you ever heard of that require human beings to make their own choices freely about their fate? Seems just like the Christian concept of free will and the choice to accept God as your personal savior and live life in his service. Doesn't really make sense otherwise.

You could see it as the religious concept of free will, and choosing to accept God as your savior. But you can also see it as the aliens saying "you want to get into the spaceship or not? Cause your planet is about to be destroyed!"

To me, besides all of the numerous direct references and borrowed imagery to the Bible and the Christian God, the biggest indicator these are angels and not aliens is the thematic point of the film and the protagonist's arc.

Well, yeah, the film is supposed to make you think about these things. The purpose of the film for me was to make you think about these two opposing views in life, religion vs. science and logic. The main character is a non believer, he leads himself by reason, yet he was brought up by a christian family. So immediately, the film is saying "this films themes are going to be science and logic vs. religion and superstition". In that way, the film is just establishing its themes.

Its very clearly a science vs. religion film from the get go when Cage gives that speech in his class, and when the kid asks him if he believes in heaven.

His first speech is about how the world is random not designed and orchestrated by God

In this way establishing the main characters beliefs.

He is estranged from his minister father, his wife was deeply religious and would be ashamed of him raising his son in a secular manner, etc. Cage is given a ton of irreligious, atheistic traits that put him at odds with other people and cause him strife

Again, its sticking very faithfully to what being a non believer is all about.

Over the course of the film he comes to relinquish doubt

He doesnt become a believer in god in the film, he simply believes his kid is going to be saved by something more powerful then he.

Believe wholeheartedly in this prophecy

He believes in the warning, but he doesnt fully understand it would be a more accurate description. In no point in the film does he end up accepting that the bible prophecies are coming true. He simply accepts that the sun is going to destroy the earth.

Now, his religious upbringing does make him doubt his non religious beliefs, because suddenly the world is going to end, so what he was taught at an early age comes back to him making him think "maybe I was wrong and its all true? Maybe God is really going to destroy us?" But the movie is really about his quest for the truth to these warnings...which end up being messages from alien beings.

trust the angelic "whisper people"

Well, I dont know how much he ends up trusting them because they have the chance to save him as well, but end up leaving him behind for some reason.

A lot of people end up asking this question. Why didnt the aliens save him as well? Why if they are angels dont they save him and all the other faithful christians of the world?

My answer is that, and this is an idea presented in many other sci-fi films as well, for example the more recent The Day the Earth Stood Still, the aliens have been studying humans for a long time. They know humans have been more harmful to planet earth then good. So they decide to wipe them out and start human life on some other planet while this one regenerates itself? In this way, bringing to full circle the man vs. nature theme of the movie. Erradicate the current slate of humans, they have been proven to be evil, lets start everything all over again, give them a second chance to do things the right way.

Thats why I keep saying that this film isnt all THAT original, The Earth Stood Still had the same ideas, even about taking life forms to save the different species from total anhilation.

In their Ezekelian transportation to benevolently take his son away

But leaving the rest of the good christians behind? hm...doesnt go in accordance to the bible.

And in the end reunites with his minister father to ask forgiveness for the atheistic attitudes that have estranged him and join his family for what can be described most aptly as The Rapture.

First of all, Cage isnt reuniting with his family for "the rapture" because they arent being taken away to heaven or anything, they are being destroyed by the sun. They are all dying. Being destroyed.

Cage simply reunited with his family because its the end of the world and he wants to see his closest family during the last hours of his life. It has nothing to do with him asking for forgiveness for being an atheist, which by the way he NEVER does in the film. He simply wants to reunite with his dad, who has decided to reject him for thinking differently then he does. Which by the way is something I see as negative, when a father stops talking to his son for trying to make sense of life in his own way. Wheres all that love and understanding that the bible is suppose to teach? Nowhere. Cage's father cares more about the bible (a book made of paper) then his own son.

But Cage doesnt care about their differences in ideals, in the end, he simply wants to be reunited with his dad and his family, inspite of what they believe in which I thought was something beautiful in Cages character in this film.

I suppose one could suggest all of this stuff is really about how human beings mistook aliens for angels

Defenetly.

But it requires straining for something other than the direct and obvious implications of the film and moreover renders the protagonist's arc and progression over the story and all the stuff about him being a nonbeliever surrounded by religious people moot

Actually, if you see it from the alien angle, everything just clicks. Its when you start putting the biblical implications that things start to get complicated because the film doesnt really adhere to the rules set by the bible itself. Remember the Occams Razor principle. :)

Making his spiritual conversion an unrelated and unnecessary time filling tangent rather than the central theme as a main character's arc tends to be.

He doesnt have a spiritual conversion in the film during any moment.

For the record, I'm agnostic, so my inclination would not be to assume the beings are angels to confirm my pre-existing beliefs, but I think that's the rather clear implication of the film.

Well, thats the way you interpreted the film. Respecting your views though, I see it very differently because I thought it was quite clear that the religious interpretations the film appear to have are really meant to be shown as misinterpretations, and thats why I think this movie is so fantastic.

In other words, everyone in the film is confused as to what they are seeing, because they dont know what they are seeing, and mix it with what they have been taught to be the truth.

For an interesting essay on the subject from Roger Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090322/COMMENTARY/903229997

And a longer discussion of the same subject between him and several readers: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/a_roll_of_whose_dice.html

Ill be checking those out soon Quentin, thanks!

[spacemonkey]

Couple of artistic representations of 'Gods Chariot' based on the bible:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/spacemonkey_fg/Chariot1.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/spacemonkey_fg/chariot2.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/spacemonkey_fg/chariot3.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b300/spacemonkey_fg/chariot4.jpg

[Dick Smarmy]

To some of you that commented: Brevity. Give it some consideration.

To the original poster:

The first thing you need to do is stop listening to your friends. You had a perfectly appropriate response to Knowing before your friends peer-pressured you into compromising your taste. I'm here to say that it's not too late. You can still rectify this situation by admitting that Knowing was just as terrible as you originally suspected and moving on, maybe changing your account name so no one reconnects you to this embarrassment.

And hey, peer-pressure hurts everyone, you're not alone. Just gradually stop hanging out with your "friends" so they don't raise concern. It will be difficult at first, but you can comfort yourself by laughing at the ridiculous level of technical analysis that birthed messily from the defense of a laughable thriller.

I'm here to talk to if things get rough. Soon, you'll watch the scene where Nicolas Cage signs to his son as he floats away with aliens to the Dr. Seuss planet and say "What the hell was I thinking!?" And I will look at you and say "Welcome back."

www.twitter.com/reeljerk

[rocknblues81]

This movie smells like a turd. Is this one of those flicks that tries to scare people?

[spacemonkey]

To some of you that commented: Brevity. Give it some consideration.

To the original poster:

The first thing you need to do is stop listening to your friends. You had a perfectly appropriate response to Knowing before your friends peer-pressured you into compromising your taste. I'm here to say that it's not too late. You can still rectify this situation by admitting that Knowing was just as terrible as you originally suspected and moving on, maybe changing your account name so no one reconnects you to this embarrassment.

And hey, peer-pressure hurts everyone, you're not alone. Just gradually stop hanging out with your "friends" so they don't raise concern. It will be difficult at first, but you can comfort yourself by laughing at the ridiculous level of technical analysis that birthed messily from the defense of a laughable thriller.

I'm here to talk to if things get rough. Soon, you'll watch the scene where Nicolas Cage signs to his son as he floats away with aliens to the Dr. Seuss planet and say "What the hell was I thinking!?" And I will look at you and say "Welcome back."

www.twitter.com/reeljerk

My friends didnt change my view of this movie, I enjoyed it ever since I first saw it. I did underestimate it simply cause Cage was in it. But I ended up liking it a whole lot after I watched it.

You didnt, I respect that.

Plus, I dont think analizing a film, its themes and symbolisms is embarassing, its what we are here for. Its what schmoes do. So tell your smarmy self to live with that.

[spacemonkey]

This movie smells like a turd. Is this one of those flicks that tries to scare people?

Actually no. It does have a level of mystery to it with the alien/angels acting all mysterious threw out the whole film. But Id say thats about as far as it goes with its scare factor. It does deal with the end of the world though, and it does get quite chaotic.

[QUENTIN]

Whoa, quite a lenghty reply, thanks for taking your time Quentin!

Right back at ya.

I want to start off by saying, I think a LOT of what you're discussing here relates to your opinion of religion and the prejudices you bring from that applied to the movie, rather than what's there in the movie. I'm arguing at no point that this movie is Left Behind, or even Tolkin's The Rapture, and is intending to put forth a remotely Biblically accurate and literal presentation of the end of the world.

Rather what I'm saying is that like The Exorcist or Stigmata or lots of popular entertainment, it's using elements from Christianity as a shorthand to imbue a thriller with more weight, gravitas, and plausibility. You're taking umbrage with the plausibility of the Christian religion and the Bible, which is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about. I'm arguing that the movie uses the self-contained logic of the Bible as the foundation of its premise, utilizing its familiar concepts like the flood and Noah's Ark (this time destruction by fire not water and pairs of children rather than all animals are what we see preserved), prophecies from angels, God's chariot, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, etc to give its thriller plot greater weight and depth. Whether or not God would "need" a chariot to get around, like whether an all-loving God would be vain and angry and jealous, is completely moot in relation to the film and is about your (and my) problems with the religion, not anything having to do with Proyas's movie.


I suppose you meant that angels dont need spaceships, and this much is true in the bible, angels never appear using spaceships to travel the heavens. This Chariot of God is for God to transport himself, along with four special beings called the zoe, who are the ones driving the throne chariot.

Right, but first: there are four angels, and second: how many people know all these bizarre specifics? Very few, I'd bet. I think what Proyas is going for is the recognition from the audience of "Oh! Look at the ship, wheels within wheels. Just like The Bible" Giving them the faces of a lion and whatever would have taken any degree of ambiguity out of the picture and also totally cut down the plausibility of having these "whisper people" (the neutral term I think we can both use without disagreeing every sentence) walk around as well as the surprise at their eventual revelation.

But, heres the thing, lets say Ezekiel saw this alien ship coming down from the heavens, and he saw four aliens emerging, couldnt he have mistaken it for something holy in nature? Couldnt he have thought it was Gods chariot, and the aliens the zoe? It could very well have been that he saw something he didnt completely understand, and just assinged it a religious interpretation.

Sure, all of this is possible, if you believe it happened in the first at all (which I don't think either of us do). But I don't think this has anything to do with the movie. You're discussing a controversial opinion discussed in a discredited book about a theory of Biblical interpretation. Nothing in the movie indicates its referencing this book and this theory rather than the more obvious reference of The Bible. You seem to be bringing this outside theory to bear on the discussion of a movie that on the face of it has nothing to do with it. If the book was intending to be a literal representation of that book and is all about its theories, it certainly goes about it in an extremely oblique way, especially for a Hollywood movie.


But as you can see, the interpretation of the film could go either way.

Right, as I recognize. But one interpretation requires little more than a simple reading of the film that takes it at face value and utilized Occam's razor, that the simplest solution is most likely the correct one. The other requires outside and obscure theories about how the angels and God of the Bible did exist but were really just space aliens, according to a guy who included information in his book he has since admitted he knew to be false and is mostly regarded as a pseudo-scientific kook or huckster. What's more likely, that a reference to something in both The Bible and that guy's book is meant to conjure up thoughts of The Bible or "Chariot of The Gods?: Unsolved Mysteries of The Past"?


Yes, only thing that if we are going to go by bible logic here (and Im assuming we are cause thats what this movie is about) then the whole thing about saving just two people is wrong, cause the bible doesnt say ANYWHERE that only two humans are going to be saved. Rather, it says that if you do good, follow gods rules and essentially live your life by the bible, that on that day of judgement you might be saved and not just the two kids. So there you see, that the film isnt really adhering to bible logic. The bible says anyone doing gods will can be saved, not just two kids.

The movie's not about so-called "bible logic" at all. It's a thriller about a scientist who finds a list detailing all the major catastrophes of the world including its final end. You seem to be presuming that because faith is a major theme in the film and the difference between the universe being controlled/destined or random is a central concern of the story that makes lots of references and includes various elements from religion that if it's meant to have a religious connection, it must be dogmatically constrained by the rules of the Bible. That's not true. The Exorcist is meant to be about a little girl being possessed by The Devil. We're not supposed to leave thinking she could have just gone crazy. Friedkin never flashed words up on the screen, "This is really The Devil, no doubt about it, not just a strange phenomenon" yet his implication is clear. BUT, that doesn't in any way mean that the representation of possession or the Devil follows Biblical description. He takes a religious concept and runs with it to create a thriller that is made more intriguing and effective by being instilled with an air of plausibility, a different kind of supernatural force is doing things.

Anyway, I don't think the movie is meant to present the end times for humanity or the Armageddon described Rapture and now regret using that loaded word as a reference to the end of the world. Rather, it's quite like The Great Flood and Noah's Ark. God destroys the Earth, but saves a few people who he first tells of the coming destruction. Only this tiny group gets to be saved, and they're going to be used to start over. Which is exactly the implication of the ending as the two kids run around in this Garden of Eden on another planet while we see other wheels-within-wheels vessels dropping off other kids in the distance.



I know thats what its meant to invoke in the film. But Im also saying that the film is trying to say that maybe what Ezekiel describes in the bible as the Chariot of God, was really just a spaceship. He describes it very well, but isnt it kind of silly to think that god, the all powerful being of the universe needs a chariot with wheels to move around and that he has four beings designated to drive it? I mean, isnt he all powerful?

Again, what in the actual film, any contextual element, indicates it's "trying to say that maybe what Ezekiel describes in the Bible as the Chariot of God, was really just a spaceship"? I think it's just showing us the Chariot of God and angels and the Garden of Eden. What you're doing is precisely the opposite of Occam's razor, that's why I brought it up. You're looking at pale, ethereal, benevolent and powerful beings with wings who use a vessel described in the Bible to take groups of pure children to another world and a place meant very clearly to invoke the Garden of Eden and instead saying "Yeah, but they're not implying any of the obvious things here, they're super subtly suggesting that those angel-creatures are just aliens, the ship that looks like God's ship from the Bible is just a spaceship, and the Garden of Eden isn't the Garden of Eden, it's a place aliens designed and we think looks like the Garden of Eden." In each instance, you're going with the less likely, plausible, obvious, simple interpretation.

And most of the rest of the argument supporting this is about the implausibilities implicit in Christianity itself, not anything the movie addresses.


It seems more plausible to me that what Ezekiel interpreted as the Chariot of God was really a spaceship and that the four beings were really aliens. Ezekiel not understanding what he saw, gave it a religious or holy interpretation, when in reality it could have been an alien spaceship. Thats what I thought the movie was really going for.

Again, this is all about your interpretation, first proffered by the Chariot of The Gods? discredited guy, of a non-God explanation for an account in the Bible. It's your opinion on a religious belief and moment in a religious text. But nothing in the film indicates that it shares this interpretation or is intending to comment in any way on the event or Christianity or is "really going for" an obscure explanation for the Biblical passage, rather it's using well-known elements of Christian lore and this passage's prophecies in its apocalyptic ending.



What I was trying to say was that the filmmakers might have checked out that book and gotten inspired by it to write the movie (and of course they mustve read Ezekiel as well) since basically the film is playing with the same themes both books presents us with. Im not giving the points presented in the 30 year old book any validity, Im just saying the book has certain similarities with the film, I mean when you look at the two its quite obvious.

I don't think so, but I'd appreciate hearing what in the film you think obviously references the book Chariot of The Gods rather than more obviously referencing The Bible.




Occams Razor is a principle that states that "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Right.


Going by that principle, its more plausible, and even more believable for me that aliens are flying around in the cosmos on a spaceship studying us, then an all powerful being whos never had a beginning or an end, that he knows everything, that he needs a car to fly around the cosmos, and four guys to drive it for him (each of them having four faces, one of a ox, one of an eagle, one of a human and one of a lion) when in reality he is supposed to be all powerful.

Spaceships with aliens is the simpler and more plausible of the two.

Not at all. Again, you're introducing your prejudices and problems with the implausibilities of a widely-believed religion and using that as a comment on the movie which is unconcerned with such things. The movie's not going for a scientifically accurate and sensible portrait of God and angels, such a thing could not exist. Rather, the simplest explanation for it including the Chariot of God described first and most known from Ezekiel, angelic benevolent pale creatures with wings who save children from fiery death, the Garden of Eden, dramatic apocalyptic prophecies, and a thematic undercurrent of arrogance in believing science can solve everything and ignorance in thinking everything's random, is that the movie is invoking famous Biblical elements and ideas to demonstrate that God is behind this stuff, the one ending life on Earth.


But its true.

No more or less true than saying they're Biblical because they're all contained in the Bible. They're all used in and integral to some sciences, that doesn't mean they're exclusively scientific, that's the spurious part.

True, but heres the interesting part. In the bible, it clearly states that NO ONE KNOWS WHEN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT IS COMING! (read: the end of the world, armageddon, ragnarok, what have you) Not even gods son knows when the day of judgment is comign. Check it out on Matthew 24:36 and onward.

So if the film as you say is supposed to be interpreted as if the prophecies in the bible about the end of the world are coming true, this is yet more proof that the film is actually NOT sticking to bible logic, but rather, a scientific one.

The characters in the film know the solar flare is going to destroy the planet because the aliens flying around the cosmos, with technology far superior then our own already know this is going to happen, and they want to save the human race by saving two of their kind.

Again, you're adhering to this literal interpretation of the Bible that the movie doesn't at all.

The characters in the film know the end of the world is coming because angelic creatures came to a little girl in a vision and told her of a prophecy about coming destruction, catastophe, and apocalypse. This is all explicitly steeped in the events of the Bible and the way famous prophets were given information, often ridiculed or called heretics or crazy at the time, and later proven right just like the little girl at the opening of Knowing. She's a prophet cut from the Biblical cloth, with examples extending throughout religion (Joseph, Mohammed, Joan of Arc, Joseph Smith, etc.).

They want to save the human race and make direct and clear reference to two key events in Genesis's description of the early days of Earth, first in destroying all of the land and people at once and saving only innocent opposite-sex pairs to start over and starting in a magnificent, perfect Garden.


Numbers and coordinates are not scientific? Really?

Yes, really. They're related to several sciences, they aren't inherently scientific and science doesn't have a monopoly on their use. See: all the numbers in the Bible.

And on top of that, the bible never gives a specific date for the end of the world! No one knows that, according to the bible, not even Gods son Jesus knows this. Only God is supposed to know this, yet the movie tells us that god gives this knowledge to two children? Nope, it seems more plausible that the aliens decided to transmit this two the two kids they wanted to save.

More of the same attempt at obscure Biblical literalism the movie doesn't attempt. The movie tells us that God chose a prophet, as the Bible is filled with, to warn of the coming catastrophe and he saved groups of opposite-sex innocent children to start over in the manner of The Great Flood and Ark and in a place just like the Garden of Eden.

Moreover, how is it "more plausible" that aliens decided to transmit these two kids they wanted to save? Explain how this is in any way more likely and plausible than God doing the same.

Continued...

[QUENTIN]

Thats what Im trying to say, that the way in which humans were warned about the end of the world in the film was through science, through numbers, coordinates, dates. Math is supposed to be some sort of universal for of communication, this is an idea presented to us in the film Contact as well. Where the alien beings contacted us humans through math as well.

No, the way humans were warned about the end of the world was through angelic people whispering a prophecy into a young girl's mind who then becomes obsessed with what she heard and immediately sets about writing it down verbatim and spends the rest of her life focused on it. Just like the stories of half the writers of the Bible, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and most religious prophets throughout history.

Now, to answer you question about less scientific ways of transmitting future events, when the bible warns of a future event it does so in a less scientific matter: through dreams and visions. You will see this all through out the bible, people are having dreams and visions all the time whenever God wants to talk to them. Many theologist say that what Ezekiel describes in his book was really a vision and not something to be taken literally, but this, as are many points in the bible, is open to debate.

This is precisely what happens, these angelic beings first basically telepathically transmit a prophecy to a little girl, then they give the little boy they save a prophetic dream of the end of the world before offering him the choice to come with them and avoid the fate.


The way I see it, that higher power isnt necesarilly "God" but rather nature and its randomness, nature and its power. The Sun power to be precise. There is nothing to say that humanity wont be anhilated by something similar, like say a huge meteor that will split us in half, Earth is just a planet floating in the cosmos...and we are vulnerable to things like this happening, much the same way a hurricane can devastate a whole country.

Heres another question, if what was in the ship was god, and the creatures were angels, then why didnt they save all those christians that are doing his will on earth? See what I mean? The film isnt really sticking to bible logic. You mentioned the rapture in one of your comments, and thats exactly what should have occured had this movie been about the bible. But it wasnt. It was about aliens taking away two little kids. Therefore there was no saving of gods faithful in the film. Only the two kids that the aliens decided to save.

You're forgetting that God wiped out all of mankind according to the Bible besides one family and pairs of opposite-sex animals to repopulate. This is what happens in the end here. But you're finally right that the film isn't really sticking to Bible logic, just using some famous elements as the groundwork for its thriller story. Why would these beings save the humans and want to start humanity over if they're aliens? No justification within the film gives us any suggestion of the answer to that question. Any speculation would be just that. If they're angels however, then it makes sense as they've done this before.



I didnt see as religion winning really. To me it was the all powerful force of nature known as the sun which ended up anhilating the earth, it was nature vs. man. Nature is a force so powerful that not even the aliens, with all their technological knowledge could stop it. All they could do was try to save to humans so that the species could continue somewhere else in the universe. Thats really what the film was about to me. Humans being at the peril of nature and the randomness of it.

You're separating the Sun and considering it purely a natural thing distinct from God. To Christians and the religious in general of course, God controls the Sun. And how do the aliens know in advance these catastrophes are going to occur, know exactly when and where and how and how many die in the future, but their technological knowledge is unable to stop it? Again, nothing in this film could begin to answer that question. If it's an omniscient, omnipotent God causing it to happen however, everything falls in line and makes sense.

I think the film definitely, almost inarguably comes down NOT on the side of randomness. Cage begins the movie arguing for randomness and comes to find things are definitely not random, if they were, this piece of paper would not be able to accurately identify a series of proscribed events in the future. Something must be controlling things then, the universe must be deterministic. This is his character's progression and he explicitly comes to recognize he was wrong in thinking everything's random.


Who says those were wings? And for that matter, who says aliens cant have wings? They could have been alien beings that have wings for all we know.

I do, I saw them, they're wings. What would you call those wing-shaped wisps of light coming out of their back were? No one says aliens cant have wings, but that ignores Occam's razor and the simplest and most plausible explanation, that angelic creatures with wings are meant to be angels, not actually aliens who just look really like all our popular conceptions of what angels look like.



You could see it as the religious concept of free will, and choosing to accept God as your savior. But you can also see it as the aliens saying "you want to get into the spaceship or not? Cause your planet is about to be destroyed!"

Why would they do this, more importantly, they say they CAN'T take him unless he chooses to go on his own. Why would that be the case if his free will and choice, central elements of Christianity and the acceptance of God, aren't actually important and the aliens are just saying "C'mon, if you don't follow us you'll get burned up" (which itself would be a pretty religiously steeped offer).



Well, yeah, the film is supposed to make you think about these things. The purpose of the film for me was to make you think about these two opposing views in life, religion vs. science and logic. The main character is a non believer, he leads himself by reason, yet he was brought up by a christian family. So immediately, the film is saying "this films themes are going to be science and logic vs. religion and superstition". In that way, the film is just establishing its themes.

Its very clearly a science vs. religion film from the get go when Cage gives that speech in his class, and when the kid asks him if he believes in heaven.

In this way establishing the main characters beliefs.

Yep. You call it "and superstition", I'd say it's "and determinism" and that's just your prejudice the film doesn't share.

The movie's events force Cage to repudiate and come full circle on the beliefs he espoused in his initial speech. This is a very common storytelling device of having your protagonist state a firmly held outlook and force him over the course of the story to realize the error of his ways and come around, this is Cage's characters arc.



Again, its sticking very faithfully to what being a non believer is all about.

You're confusing the main character's beliefs to the movie's beliefs, this is common but a mistake. The movie is showing the damage his initial belief system has done to him.

He doesnt become a believer in god in the film, he simply believes his kid is going to be saved by something more powerful then he.



He believes in the warning, but he doesnt fully understand it would be a more accurate description. In no point in the film does he end up accepting that the bible prophecies are coming true. He simply accepts that the sun is going to destroy the earth.

Now, his religious upbringing does make him doubt his non religious beliefs, because suddenly the world is going to end, so what he was taught at an early age comes back to him making him think "maybe I was wrong and its all true? Maybe God is really going to destroy us?" But the movie is really about his quest for the truth to these warnings...which end up being messages from alien beings.

Nothing the whole film suggests they're aliens. There's no other references to extraterrestrials or space or anything, there are however a shit ton of references to and central thematic elements about religion, God, determinism, omniscience, prophecy, etc.

He comes to believe he is wrong in his thinking, exacerbated by the seemingly senseless death of his wife, that everything just happens randomly. Instead he comes to understand some omniscient and omnipotent force is controlling things. When he fully understands this, he trusts this force to take his child (he encourages the kid to go) and rushes to reunite with the deeply religious family (his father is a minister, why make that the case if the film isn't about God and a scientist accepting him but is instead about space aliens??) and be accepted by them in his last moments before Earth is destroyed by these beings.


Well, I dont know how much he ends up trusting them because they have the chance to save him as well, but end up leaving him behind for some reason.

A lot of people end up asking this question. Why didnt the aliens save him as well? Why if they are angels dont they save him and all the other faithful christians of the world?

Like angels/God didn't save Noah's neighbors or extended family. He does trust them because he encourages his kid to go with them once he sees them for what they are.

My answer is that, and this is an idea presented in many other sci-fi films as well, for example the more recent The Day the Earth Stood Still, the aliens have been studying humans for a long time. They know humans have been more harmful to planet earth then good. So they decide to wipe them out and start human life on some other planet while this one regenerates itself? In this way, bringing to full circle the man vs. nature theme of the movie. Erradicate the current slate of humans, they have been proven to be evil, lets start everything all over again, give them a second chance to do things the right way.

Thats why I keep saying that this film isnt all THAT original, The Earth Stood Still had the same ideas, even about taking life forms to save the different species from total anhilation.

That's fine speculation and internal logic, but it's entirely extra-textual. Nothing in the film itself ever has anything to do with aliens. Aliens are never implied, suggested, the word is never used, no element in the film is related to anything having to do with space aliens observing us. There are, however, dozens of explicit references to religion and God.



But leaving the rest of the good christians behind? hm...doesnt go in accordance to the bible.

It does, see the same event (with water instead of fire) in Genesis, the Great Flood and salvation of only Noah and opposite-sex pairs of animals like the kids in the movie.



First of all, Cage isnt reuniting with his family for "the rapture" because they arent being taken away to heaven or anything, they are being destroyed by the sun. They are all dying. Being destroyed.

Rapture was the wrong word. The Earthly apocalypse.


Cage simply reunited with his family because its the end of the world and he wants to see his closest family during the last hours of his life. It has nothing to do with him asking for forgiveness for being an atheist, which by the way he NEVER does in the film. He simply wants to reunite with his dad, who has decided to reject him for thinking differently then he does. Which by the way is something I see as negative, when a father stops talking to his son for trying to make sense of life in his own way. Wheres all that love and understanding that the bible is suppose to teach? Nowhere. Cage's father cares more about the bible (a book made of paper) then his own son.


He asks for forgiveness and redemption from his father on the phone in their last conversation before he rushes to them. Again, why have him come from a deeply religious family and have a minister father he is first estranged with then embraces at his death if this is insignificant to the movie?

Again, you use this as an opportunity to air your negative views on religion, rather than anything the movie concerns itself with or features.


Actually, if you see it from the alien angle, everything just clicks. Its when you start putting the biblical implications that things start to get complicated because the film doesnt really adhere to the rules set by the bible itself. Remember the Occams Razor principle. :)

As I demonstrated, I think this is completely and totally backwards, but I look forward to your thoughtful responses and further elucidation on those points.

[spacemonkey]

I want to start off by saying, I think a LOT of what you're discussing here relates to your opinion of religion and the prejudices you bring from that applied to the movie, rather than what's there in the movie. I'm arguing at no point that this movie is Left Behind, or even Tolkin's The Rapture, and is intending to put forth a remotely Biblically accurate and literal presentation of the end of the world.

Rather what I'm saying is that like The Exorcist or Stigmata or lots of popular entertainment, it's using elements from Christianity as a shorthand to imbue a thriller with more weight, gravitas, and plausibility. You're taking umbrage with the plausibility of the Christian religion and the Bible, which is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about. I'm arguing that the movie uses the self-contained logic of the Bible as the foundation of its premise, utilizing its familiar concepts like the flood and Noah's Ark (this time destruction by fire not water and pairs of children rather than all animals are what we see preserved), prophecies from angels, God's chariot, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, etc to give its thriller plot greater weight and depth. Whether or not God would "need" a chariot to get around, like whether an all-loving God would be vain and angry and jealous, is completely moot in relation to the film and is about your (and my) problems with the religion, not anything having to do with Proyas's movie.

Yeah, if god really needs a throne or not to move about the galaxy (or that actually exists) is irrelevant to the movie, but I mentioned it because its there on the film, the movie fed off of that from the bible, thats obvious to anyone whos read the biblical book of Ezekiel. If its real or not, you are right, belongs in another. (mainly that great religious thred on the non movie related are of Joblo!)

Right, but first: there are four angels, and second: how many people know all these bizarre specifics? Very few, I'd bet. I think what Proyas is going for is the recognition from the audience of "Oh! Look at the ship, wheels within wheels. Just like The Bible" Giving them the faces of a lion and whatever would have taken any degree of ambiguity out of the picture and also totally cut down the plausibility of having these "whisper people" (the neutral term I think we can both use without disagreeing every sentence) walk around as well as the surprise at their eventual revelation.

Yeah, but had it truly been a biblical film, the aliens would have had these four different faces, and three pairs of wings. I know what you mean, not everyone knows these things, the movie simply fed from the bible, cause quite honestly, some of the things from the bible make for a great fx film. But like any film adapted on a work of fiction, filmakers always take their artistic liberties with the source material.

Sure, all of this is possible, if you believe it happened in the first at all (which I don't think either of us do). But I don't think this has anything to do with the movie.

Agree.

You're discussing a controversial opinion discussed in a discredited book about a theory of Biblical interpretation. Nothing in the movie indicates its referencing this book and this theory rather than the more obvious reference of The Bible.

But the film plays with the same things of the book. That Ezekiel really saw aliens instead of angels, I mean just seeing the film you can tell thats exactly what your seeing. I saw the film with three other people, they too were asking themselves are those angels or aliens. As have many people who saw the film.

You seem to be bringing this outside theory to bear on the discussion of a movie that on the face of it has nothing to do with it. If the film was intending to be a literal representation of that book and is all about its theories, it certainly goes about it in an extremely oblique way, especially for a Hollywood movie.

Nah Quentin, what I said that maybe the filmakers were influenced by the ideas from that book mixed with ideas from the bible. Its a mixing of the two. Not an adaptation of that book, which I know is not held in high regard. Im simply saying the film was playing with similar themes.

What's more likely, that a reference to something in both The Bible and that guy's book is meant to conjure up thoughts of The Bible or "Chariot of The Gods?: Unsolved Mysteries of The Past"?

Im going with the idea of the film taking ideas from both books. But not literall translations, just taking ideas presented in both books and going with them.

The movie's not about so-called "bible logic" at all. It's a thriller about a scientist who finds a list detailing all the major catastrophes of the world including its final end. You seem to be presuming that because faith is a major theme in the film and the difference between the universe being controlled/destined or random is a central concern of the story that makes lots of references and includes various elements from religion that if it's meant to have a religious connection, it must be dogmatically constrained by the rules of the Bible. That's not true.

Most films that play with themes of the bible dont adhere 100% to the bible, this is what happened with this film. Though Knowing played with many biblical elements, its took its liberties with them. I agree on that as well. I just expect a movie that talks about the end of the world (from a biblical stand point) and the possibility that the beings emerging from the ship are aliens..and the kids are off to a new eden..well that it would adhere to the bible, but it didnt. I get that, and really any movie can do this, and do do it all the time.

The Exorcist is meant to be about a little girl being possessed by The Devil. We're not supposed to leave thinking she could have just gone crazy. Friedkin never flashed words up on the screen, "This is really The Devil, no doubt about it, not just a strange phenomenon" yet his implication is clear. BUT, that doesn't in any way mean that the representation of possession or the Devil follows Biblical description. He takes a religious concept and runs with it to create a thriller that is made more intriguing and effective by being instilled with an air of plausibility, a different kind of supernatural force is doing things.

I differ from you on this a bit because Friedkins film is following the biblical description of how a possesed person behaves. Theres certain passages in the bible about a possesed man who is possesed by a group of demons calling themselves "legion" the man walks around naked, cuts himself, hangs around in the cemetery. When Jesus presents himself in front of them, they get scared and he exorcises the demons from the man. The script from The Exorcist is all the way biblical, and thats why it works so effectively.

The Exorcist sticks pretty close to the bible and what a demonic possesion is supposed to be like. Theres no doubt on anyones mind when they leave the theater that the girl in The Exorcist was possesed by demons, that what the movie was about there was no ambiguity in the film at all. It was quite clear. Friedkin made it clear in the film on many occassions. When you bring priests into the picture, and what they say to the demons actually works (and the exorcism works because they used the bible) then theres no doubt in your mind that she was possesed by the demons. He doesnt have to flash words on screen, its clear by the situations and dialog. He didnt just take a religious concept and went with it, he showed exactly what a demonic possesion is supposed to be like according to the bible.

This is something that Knowing does not do. Theres a level of ambiguity about Knowing, is it biblical or scientific? Aliens or demons? The end of the world brought forth by god or a natural cataclismic event?

Anyway, I don't think the movie is meant to present the end times for humanity or the Armageddon described Rapture and now regret using that loaded word as a reference to the end of the world.

I dont think its the biblical end of times or rapture or anything of that nature either, to me it was just a major cataclysmic event, that brought forth a natural end of the world. Nature went wild. But it does feed from and play with religions ideas about the end of the world.

Rather, it's quite like The Great Flood and Noah's Ark. God destroys the Earth, but saves a few people who he first tells of the coming destruction. Only this tiny group gets to be saved, and they're going to be used to start over. Which is exactly the implication of the ending as the two kids run around in this Garden of Eden on another planet while we see other wheels-within-wheels vessels dropping off other kids in the distance.

It is a lot like Noahs ark, which is also an end of the world story by the way, on that occassion the world ended with a flood.

But according to the bible, that already happened. And there is a forthcoming 'end of the world' sometime in the near future (according to the bible) The end of the world we see in the film is supposed to be the second one. And in that coming apocalypse, it is prophesized in the bible that the faithful will be saved. Thats the part in which the film simply decided lets just save these two kids. But you say more kids got saved? I dont remember that so well, Im going to have give the film another look! I do remember more ships, but not seeing more kids emerging from them.

Again, what in the actual film, any contextual element, indicates it's "trying to say that maybe what Ezekiel describes in the Bible as the Chariot of God, was really just a spaceship"? I think it's just showing us the Chariot of God and angels and the Garden of Eden.

I guess I didnt see it that way because the film took many artistic liberties with the biblical elements, plus the ships look like spaceships, the angels dont look like angels or the typical concept of what an angel should look like. According to what religion tells people angels look like through illustrations, they dont look anything like whats portrayed in the film. I mean angels are supposed to be wearing white linen, have swords, have wings that look like bird wings...and the movies entities dont look anything like that. At all. Its why I go with the idea of them being aliens, cause the movie wasnt very clear establishing clearly that they were angels. Images and lean more towards the alien angle, even though it laces it with what can be taken as religious themes.

What you're doing is precisely the opposite of Occam's razor, that's why I brought it up. You're looking at pale, ethereal, benevolent and powerful beings with wings who use a vessel described in the Bible to take groups of pure children to another world and a place meant very clearly to invoke the Garden of Eden and instead saying "Yeah, but they're not implying any of the obvious things here, they're super subtly suggesting that those angel-creatures are just aliens, the ship that looks like God's ship from the Bible is just a spaceship, and the Garden of Eden isn't the Garden of Eden, it's a place aliens designed and we think looks like the Garden of Eden." In each instance, you're going with the less likely, plausible, obvious, simple interpretation.

But isnt that what Occams Razor is about, the most simple explenation is the one thats supposed to be true? Thats why Im going with it, if I look deeper into it, then Im looking for something thats really not there. If I see aliens, and I go but maybe they are angels...then Im not going by the Occams RAzor principle. To me, its more plausible that they are aliens. I didnt see anything that obviously said to me "these are angels" Nothing. Things in this film 'evoke' images or reference biblical images...but thats as far as it went if you ask me. The aliens evoked angels, the ship references visually gods chariot. It wasnt clearly stated in the film.

And most of the rest of the argument supporting this is about the implausibilities implicit in Christianity itself, not anything the movie addresses.

Yeah, those belong on another thread. :)

Again, this is all about your interpretation, first proffered by the Chariot of The Gods? discredited guy, of a non-God explanation for an account in the Bible. It's your opinion on a religious belief and moment in a religious text. But nothing in the film indicates that it shares this interpretation or is intending to comment in any way on the event or Christianity or is "really going for" an obscure explanation for the Biblical passage, rather it's using well-known elements of Christian lore and this passage's prophecies in its apocalyptic ending.

A bible reading person will immediately see all the biblical references in the film, but will also note that they are not entirely biblical, had this been biblical, the aliens would have obviously been angels like in other films that use biblical lore. Example, Frailty. When you see frailty, theres no doubt in your mind that those are in deed angels being depicted in the film, and that this is what the main character is seeing. When you look at Knowing, it doesnt seem quite so clear. Its the main reason why so many people have had the same doubt: are they angels or are they aliens? Had the movie been crystal clear, there would be no doubt. This just leads me to believe that the filmakers were deliberately being ambiguous with this. Me thinks they wanted to please both camps, the religious and the scientific. Or cause a little controversy, make people talk about their movie, which I must say has worked wonders on this board! :)

I don't think so, but I'd appreciate hearing what in the film you think obviously references the book Chariot of The Gods rather than more obviously referencing The Bible.

Could it be that the "angels" come down in spaceships? And one other thing: in the bible there is only ONE Chariot of God, there arent many. How then do you explain all the other spaceships that you mentioned were seen in the ending of the film? Could it be a whole alien race is trying to save humanity from extintion? Hmm..cause the bible says nothing about many chariots for god. ANd angels do not move around in spaceships, they simply appear and dissapear, fly about and what have you. No spaceships for them.

Not at all. Again, you're introducing your prejudices and problems with the implausibilities of a widely-believed religion and using that as a comment on the movie which is unconcerned with such things.

Well, I have to talk about the bible and my thoughts on it because the film is about believing in heaven or not. My personal opinion on the subject I dont have to keep to myself, its my opinion and I can voice it, specially when thats what the movie is about. This movie is not unconcerned with religion, it IS about religion. About believing in it or not. Thats one of the main characters major issues.

Plus, while talking about this movie, Im actually taking the bible in consideration and going with its mythology. Im putting aside my personal beliefs on religion and considering biblical mythology, to try and see if the movie is accurately portraying it, which it isnt. As weve spoken, the film simply isnt sticking to bible mythology, its simply referencing it, thats why it isnt very accurate at all.

[QUENTIN]

I'm thinking maybe you didn't mean to post when you did, but I wanted to address this one thing because I feel like we're miscommunicating.


But isnt that what Occams Razor is about, the most simple explenation is the one thats supposed to be true? Thats why Im going with it, if I look deeper into it, then Im looking for something thats really not there. If I see aliens, and I go but maybe they are angels...then Im not going by the Occams RAzor principle. To me, its more plausible that they are aliens. I didnt see anything that obviously said to me "these are angels" Nothing. Things in this film 'evoke' images or reference biblical images...but thats as far as it went if you ask me. The aliens evoked angels, the ship references visually gods chariot. It wasnt clearly stated in the film.


To be clear, my point is you are not in fact going with it. The film presents us with pale, benevolent, beings who look like humans except they have ethereal wings. This is how angels, not aliens, are generally conceived and presented. In the end they use a vessel initially more associated with aliens, a ship from the sky, until we see its unique "wheels-within-wheels" design and explicit reference to the same structure in the Bible, which is associated with angels and God, not aliens. They require the child make his own free choice to go with them and cannot take him if he doesn't choose to, this is associated with angels and God, not aliens. The whole apocalyptic scenario is foretold in a prophecy these creatures give to an innocent child who transcribes their word and goes mad focusing on the prophecy, the protagonist of the film finds this document and becomes an evangelist for it, trying to convince everyone around him that the prophecy foretold is true and manifest, all of this is associated with how God operates, not aliens. Finally, these beings destroy the planet as they warned they would and save only opposite-sex pairs of innocents to start over, something associated with how God operates, not aliens. They take these kids to a gorgeous, flawless and natural land where they run together towards an enormous tree, explicitly referencing the Garden of Eden, something associated with how God operates, not alien worlds.

You're seeing all of this, and then coming to the conclusion that all of the clear references to things from the Bible, Christianity, and religion are in fact oblique references to aliens, something never in any way referenced in a film filled with explicit references to God and religion. You're assuming these beings meant to look like angels are actually angelic-looking aliens, that the ship meant to look like God's chariot known from the Bible is actually a reference to an obscure book that suggested God's chariot was really filled with aliens, that most of the religious references and the fact that Cage's father is a priest is mostly superfluous to the story or a minor point, that the prophetic visions are from aliens rather than the type angels have been reported as giving for 3,000 years, that the direct visual reference to the Garden of Eden isn't meant to be the Garden of Eden and the fact that the grass isn't green means it's a bizarre totally alien world. This is certainly not the simplest or most likely explanation. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it's a direct rejection of Occam's razor, which is why I brought that up.

[spacemonkey]

The movie's not going for a scientifically accurate and sensible portrait of God and angels, such a thing could not exist. Rather, the simplest explanation for it including the Chariot of God described first and most known from Ezekiel, angelic benevolent pale creatures with wings who save children from fiery death, the Garden of Eden, dramatic apocalyptic prophecies, and a thematic undercurrent of arrogance in believing science can solve everything and ignorance in thinking everything's random, is that the movie is invoking famous Biblical elements and ideas to demonstrate that God is behind this stuff, the one ending life on Earth.

See, in the film, its only the religious humans who think its the biblical end of the world, that its the prophetical armageddon thats coming. Nicolas Cages father in the film is all about it. But Cage isnt. Cage is about a solar flare thats gonna hit the earth, we gotta hide in a cave. He never admits to believing in heaven or angels or anything, and neither does anybody else in the film. Only the religious folks in the film think its a biblical armageddon. Does this mean that this is whats happening? Does this mean that in the film god is the one bringing for the end of the world? Nope, it simply means that this is what some of the characters in the film believe to be the truth.

Again, you're adhering to this literal interpretation of the Bible that the movie doesn't at all.

So is the movie biblical or not then? First you say "yeah the film is biblical, look it like Noahs Ark, its about the biblical end of the world, god is bringing the end of the world just like in the bible" but when I point out its not biblical because of this and that you come out with the excuse that the film "isnt literally interpreting the bible". So which is it man? Is the film biblical or not?

The characters in the film know the end of the world is coming because angelic creatures came to a little girl in a vision and told her of a prophecy about coming destruction, catastophe, and apocalypse. This is all explicitly steeped in the events of the Bible and the way famous prophets were given information, often ridiculed or called heretics or crazy at the time, and later proven right just like the little girl at the opening of Knowing. She's a prophet cut from the Biblical cloth, with examples extending throughout religion (Joseph, Mohammed, Joan of Arc, Joseph Smith, etc.).

It is never stated that these events are in fact biblical, simply referenced. Some characters think this is that god is bringing forth the end of the world, but does this make it so? You might just as well say that the messages the little girl and boy got where the aliens sending them a message, warning them. That what came down were spaceships and aliens.

Heres another example of what happens in the film: if a meteriote were coming directly towards earth right now and was almost certainly going to oblietarate all life on earth, do you not think that a large group of the population would say its gods judgment coming for us? When in reality its just meteorite? A natural cataclismic event?

Another example I can make for you is The Day The Earth Stood Still. It has the same themes. Aliens coming to earth to save humanity from total anhilation. They also come to take a child and some wild life (just like Noahs Ark) and the end of the world is there, but it comes because of little nanobots eating everything up (instead of a solar flare). Did I see the biblical references in that film? Of course. They are there. Its obvious. But I did not for one moment think the film was biblical in nature, it was simply similar to it. It had similar themes.

Knowing to me was different then The Day the Earth Stood Still in one way, it addressed how people can give religious meaning to events in their lives, whitout the events having anything to do with the bible.

They want to save the human race and make direct and clear reference to two key events in Genesis's description of the early days of Earth, first in destroying all of the land and people at once and saving only innocent opposite-sex pairs to start over and starting in a magnificent, perfect Garden.

You yourself keep using the word "reference" when talking about the film, which is the point Im trying to make. These biblical connections you can make in the film are all simply references to the bible. Again, its similar to the bible, but doesnt mean it is portraying biblically related events.

More of the same attempt at obscure Biblical literalism the movie doesn't attempt. The movie tells us that God chose a prophet, as the Bible is filled with, to warn of the coming catastrophe and he saved groups of opposite-sex innocent children to start over in the manner of The Great Flood and Ark and in a place just like the Garden of Eden.

Well, if like you say the film is biblical, then isnt it logical to expect the film to stick to the things depicted in the bible? The bible says that one one knows when the day of the end is coming, not even Jesus knows, only God. This means, that if the day of judgment depicted in the bible were to come, it would take everyone by surprise.

Moreover, how is it "more plausible" that aliens decided to transmit these two kids they wanted to save? Explain how this is in any way more likely and plausible than God doing the same.

I find it more possible for there to be life on some other part of the universe, an intelligent lifeform in some other part of the cosmos. The universe is right there, I can see it, weve been in space, weve seen pictures of the universe, of other galaxies. I think it is possible for there to be another planet like ours placed in a good environment for life to thrive in. It seems dumb for the universe to be there just for us humans and thats it. It too vast. I find that more plausible then to believing in the thrones, and trumpets and horses and swords in heaven, in Satan, an evil entity out to make you do bad things and all that hoopla. Thats what I believe though, dont expect everyone to believe the same.

[spacemonkey]

The film presents us with pale, benevolent, beings who look like humans except they have ethereal wings.

They disguised themselves as humans, something aliens have done in films before. But again, going with the ambiguity of the film, its something that angels also do in the bible.

Heres where I see things differently: When the beings show their true form, they look nothing like humans, they look completely alien. Angels, as far as Im concerned always look like humans, but with wings on their back. These beings did not look human when they showed their true form. At all. If you look closely at the film, those beings going back into the spaceship with the kids looked nothing like a human.

Now if they are aliens, then it makes sense cause aliens tend to NOT look like humans.

This is how angels, not aliens, are generally conceived and presented.

In the end they use a vessel initially more associated with aliens, a ship from the sky, until we see its unique "wheels-within-wheels" design and explicit reference to the same structure in the Bible which is associated with angels and God, not aliens.

Again, theres the word, "reference" cause it aint really gods chariot, which has certain specifics the spaceship portrayed in the film does not portray. Trust me, the ship we see in the film isnt the chariot from Ezekiel, it is referencing the "wheels within wheels" element. Thats it.

They require the child make his own free choice to go with them and cannot take him if he doesn't choose to, this is associated with angels and God, not aliens.

Same thing happened in the last moments of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, when the guy decides to go on the spaceships with the aliens because he wants to. I didnt think they were angels then. By the way, Knowing is so much like Close Encounters.

The whole apocalyptic scenario is foretold in a prophecy these creatures give to an innocent child who transcribes their word and goes mad focusing on the prophecy

What do you think the going insane part of the story references? That when people think they hear gods voice talking to them, they are really crazy? Cause as far as Im concerned, no prophet from the bible went crazy from hearing god talk to them. Could this film actually be making a comment on how some religious folks go crazy from reading about all these prophecies? Cause that has been known to happen!

The protagonist of the film finds this document and becomes an evangelist for it, trying to convince everyone around him that the prophecy foretold is true and manifest, all of this is associated with how God operates, not aliens.

I dont get why the aliens cant know when the flare is going to hit the earth, if humans with their technology can saw it coming down hear on earth as well. They, with their superior technology probably knew about long before we did.


Finally, these beings destroy the planet as they warned they would

It is never mentioned that these beings were the ones who destroyed the planet Quentin! It was the solar flare, a natural event which cause the destruction of civilization as we know it.

and save only opposite-sex pairs of innocents to start over, something associated with how God operates, not aliens.

Tell that to the aliens in The Day the Earth Stood Still.

They take these kids to a gorgeous, flawless and natural land where they run together towards an enormous tree, explicitly referencing the Garden of Eden, something associated with how God operates, not alien worlds.

Whats not alien about a white tree, with grass that moves as if it were alive? Oh and whats not alien about a planet having more then two suns? Of course that was an alien planet they were being left on, but of course again the film is referencing the bible. Doesnt mean the movie is being literall with it, cause it wasnt.

You're seeing all of this, and then coming to the conclusion that all of the clear references to things from the Bible, Christianity, and religion are in fact oblique references to aliens, something never in any way referenced in a film filled with explicit references to God and religion.

The thing is that for me, the beings are more clearly aliens then angels. But the movie mixes both things, we see alien spaceships, we see aliens, we see alien worlds, but still give it religious meaning, cause of what we have read in the bible.

To me, thats one of the points the film is making, how humans can give religious meaning to things that have non.

That Aurthur C. Clarke quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" fits this movie perfectly if you ask me. Humans see something "magical" or "religious" when they see something they dont understand, like alien spaceships.

You're assuming these beings meant to look like angels are actually angelic-looking aliens

Yeah, cause they dont look like what biblical angels are supposed to look like. They look alien.

that the ship meant to look like God's chariot known from the Bible is actually a reference to an obscure book that suggested God's chariot was really filled with aliens

Yes, because aside from the "wheels within wheels" thats not really Gods Chariot from the bible. Its missing many other things from it...mainly God himself which is nowhere to be seen in the film. Did you notice that? Its supposed to be Gods chariot, but god aint nowhere to be seen? Hmm...

that most of the religious references and the fact that Cage's father is a priest is mostly superfluous to the story or a minor point

Incorrect man, I think its a major theme in the film. People giving religious meaning to things, simply because they do not understand the things they see.

that the prophetic visions are from aliens rather than the type angels have been reported as giving for 3,000 years

Angels have not been reported to give any messages. The characters in the bible do that. The bible has said for thousands of years that angels talk to people, but do they in fact talk to them? That is a subject for another thread.

that the direct visual reference to the Garden of Eden isn't meant to be the Garden of Eden and the fact that the grass isn't green means it's a bizarre totally alien world.

That was not the garden of Eden my friend. The biblical Garden of Eden was supposed to be right here on earth, not on an alien planet with many suns, white trees and living grass. Sorry man.

This is certainly not the simplest or most likely explanation. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it's a direct rejection of Occam's razor, which is why I brought that up.

Thing is, that for me Aliens are more plausible then angels. Why? Cause of the universe being real, and vast. If you go down the path of logic, you can deduct that the possibility of alien life in some other part of the inmense universe is a real one. To me that is more likely then anything that appears in the bible. Thats why I think Im applaying the Occams Razor principle correctly, cause it seems more believable that they are aliens, then that they are mythical creatures and that the film is simply referencing them to make a point. But thats me though, thats my take on the movie and I dont expect everyone to agree with it.

But I do like listening to what other people saw in the film, simply out of curiosity. Just to see how this film plays with our perceptions.

[spacemonkey]

No, the way humans were warned about the end of the world was through angelic people whispering a prophecy into a young girl's mind who then becomes obsessed with what she heard and immediately sets about writing it down verbatim and spends the rest of her life focused on it. Just like the stories of half the writers of the Bible, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and most religious prophets throughout history.

The only difference being the girl went mad after obsessing over these prophecies, again, I think here the film is referencing the dangers of religous fanatism, when people obsess over these prophecies, and do nothing but think about them all the time, they forget to live their lives.

This is precisely what happens, these angelic beings first basically telepathically transmit a prophecy to a little girl, then they give the little boy they save a prophetic dream of the end of the world before offering him the choice to come with them and avoid the fate.

Could also be aliens sending messages telepathically. I mean whos to tell?

You're forgetting that God wiped out all of mankind according to the Bible besides one family and pairs of opposite-sex animals to repopulate. This is what happens in the end here.

You are right. God did wipe out all of humanity save for Noah and his family. But you need to remember one thing man, Noah went around the world preaching to everyone about this end of the world, and all those who would listen would end up getting saved. No one in the film was warned or preached to about the ending of the world in this film.

Its as if God had only told Noah about the end of the world then said to him "get in the ark cause Im gonna flood this place!" without giving anyone the chance.

Why would these beings save the humans and want to start humanity over if they're aliens?

I dont know, maybe they want to help another race from dissapearing from the universe? Help them begin things anew? Much like a human might want to save an endangered species from dissapearing from our planet?

No justification within the film gives us any suggestion of the answer to that question. Any speculation would be just that. If they're angels however, then it makes sense as they've done this before.

Nah man, in the bible (again, Im bringing up what the bible says cause the film is supposed to be biblical according to you) when god is going to destroy the earth, he always sends someone to save the faithful. Noah and his family were the only good humans on earth at the time of the flood, when God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, he sent two angels to save Lot and his family cause they were the only good humans and so forth....whenever God is going to bring forth the end of the world, he saves his "faithful servants"

Now, what happened to Cages father? He was one of the faithful yet he was obliterated by the "end of the world".

Now, if this was simply a natural cataclism that was occuring, and there was nothing the aliens could do to stop it save for saving a few humans, then that sounds like a plausible explenation to me.

Had the film been biblical, Cages father would not have died in the fire along with the Cage the non believer. Whats that saying? If the film is biblical, what does that say? That God isnt gonna save the faithful like he says in the bible? But if its about aliens...then it makes sense.

You're separating the Sun and considering it purely a natural thing distinct from God. To Christians and the religious in general of course, God controls the Sun. And how do the aliens know in advance these catastrophes are going to occur, know exactly when and where and how and how many die in the future, but their technological knowledge is unable to stop it? Again, nothing in this film could begin to answer that question.

Yeah, the film does not answer that question it is true. Its the only thing that doesnt fit for me. How would aliens know when the plain/train accidents were to occur and why would they care about those events?

But I guess if we were to speculate on the science fiction part of the film, then the aliens could have time traveling capabilities or something...they know when everything is going to happen before it does? Im stretching there, I know.

If it's an omniscient, omnipotent God causing it to happen however, everything falls in line and makes sense.

You got me there bro.

I think the film definitely, almost inarguably comes down NOT on the side of randomness. Cage begins the movie arguing for randomness and comes to find things are definitely not random, if they were, this piece of paper would not be able to accurately identify a series of proscribed events in the future. Something must be controlling things then, the universe must be deterministic. This is his character's progression and he explicitly comes to recognize he was wrong in thinking everything's random.

True, the piece of paper with dates and number of people dying is accurate. And it says when horrible tragedies will occur across the world, and they come true, making references to Noah getting a personal message from God about the flood, or Lot getting warned by the angels. True. I dont know what to think about this part of the film, because I cannot justify why aliens would know or care about a plane crash or a train crash, unless they had time traveling capabilities, problem is this is not alluded to in the film, so Im gonna have to say this part of the film is obviously religious in nature.

I do, I saw them, they're wings. What would you call those wing-shaped wisps of light coming out of their back were? No one says aliens cant have wings, but that ignores Occam's razor and the simplest and most plausible explanation, that angelic creatures with wings are meant to be angels, not actually aliens who just look really like all our popular conceptions of what angels look like.

Thing is, the beings looked nothing like what an angel is supposed to look like. I saw NO wings, wings are supposed to like the wings on a bird, not what we saw in the film which were not wings at all.

Why would they do this, more importantly, they say they CAN'T take him unless he chooses to go on his own. Why would that be the case if his free will and choice, central elements of Christianity and the acceptance of God, aren't actually important and the aliens are just saying "C'mon, if you don't follow us you'll get burned up" (which itself would be a pretty religiously steeped offer).

This has happened in other films, aliens will take someone with them if they want to come, dont see why thats a big issue. See Close Encounters for an example of this.

Yep. You call it "and superstition", I'd say it's "and determinism" and that's just your prejudice the film doesn't share.

Still, doesnt change the fact that the film is religion vs. science.

The movie's events force Cage to repudiate and come full circle on the beliefs he espoused in his initial speech. This is a very common storytelling device of having your protagonist state a firmly held outlook and force him over the course of the story to realize the error of his ways and come around, this is Cage's characters arc.

According to you, Cage changed his ways and is now a religious believer? I thought he was simply uniting with his dad in the last days of his existense on earth? I didnt see the "change" you mention, he simply went with the inevitable events that were occurring.

You're confusing the main character's beliefs to the movie's beliefs, this is common but a mistake. The movie is showing the damage his initial belief system has done to him.

The damage I saw in the film was how a father (Cages father in the film) stopped talking to his son because he wasnt a christian. Yet I saw it positive that Cage went to his father non the less in the last moments of his life, saying what the hell, it doesnt matter what we believe in, what matters is our love for each other.

Nothing the whole film suggests they're aliens. There's no other references to extraterrestrials or space or anything, there are however a shit ton of references to and central thematic elements about religion, God, determinism, omniscience, prophecy, etc.

How can spaceships, beings from space and telepathy not be seen as alien in nature? The film does mix humans religious beliefs with these alien elements though.

He comes to believe he is wrong in his thinking, exacerbated by the seemingly senseless death of his wife, that everything just happens randomly. Instead he comes to understand some omniscient and omnipotent force is controlling things.

This happens when he accepts that the numbers in the paper are accurate?

When he fully understands this, he trusts this force to take his child (he encourages the kid to go)

I would if it was the only way my child was going to be saved from the earths destruction.

and rushes to reunite with the deeply religious family (his father is a minister, why make that the case if the film isn't about God and a scientist accepting him but is instead about space aliens??) and be accepted by them in his last moments before Earth is destroyed by these beings.

He simply reunited with his father and family in his last moments in his life, why do you see it as him turning into a faithful person? He simply wants to be close to his family in the last moments of his life, this is a very human thing to want to do, nothing to do with suddenly "believing"

Like angels/God didn't save Noah's neighbors or extended family

Yeah, but he gave them a chance by having Noah preach to them for 40 years. Noah preached and warned his neighbors yet they did not listen, they were not faithful, they didnt heed the warning so they died. In Knowing even the faithful die!

It does, see the same event (with water instead of fire) in Genesis, the Great Flood and salvation of only Noah and opposite-sex pairs of animals like the kids in the movie.

Again, the humans that died in Noahs flood and Sodom and Gomorrah died because they were unfaithful, in the film, even the faithful die, showing us that the film isnt really biblical or that maybe the writers had a little too many points to deal with and let this one slip.

He asks for forgiveness and redemption from his father on the phone in their last conversation before he rushes to them. Again, why have him come from a deeply religious family and have a minister father he is first estranged with then embraces at his death if this is insignificant to the movie?

I never said this was an insignificant point in the film, in fact, Ive always said through out our discussion that it was a great way of showing how humanity won over any belief system. Who cares what we believe in? Its our love for each other that should matter in life.

Again, you use this as an opportunity to air your negative views on religion, rather than anything the movie concerns itself with or features.

I didnt air this issue to take this as an opportunity to air my negative views on religion, the movie did. The movie does concern itself with these issues, it e shows us a father and a son that dont talk to each other because they think differently. Both are wrong, Cage wont talk to his dad because he is religious and his dad wont talk to him cause he doesnt believe in Jesus. I found it positive that they reunite in the end.

Whew, this thread has me exhausted.