Talk:The Secret (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Description

This page has some information about the film, and what "The Law of Attraction" really is (it's just thinking about what you will become or get). http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001677.htm It's like, if you keep saying to yourself and others, all I ever eat is crappy food at Denny's, you'll probably end up eating crappy food at Denny's.

[edit] Request

Can someone who has seen the film flesh out the Plot some more? Is the film a drama or documentary, or both? --Feight 00:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the film and am willing to add more content as soon as I have the time. I just added an info box. Regarding your question about the genre of the film, thats a problem, Im not quiet sure what category it should fit into, it's more of a self-help style film. DaSilvaArtur 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


This is basically a documentary - just like the ones you see on Discovery Channel. The only reason why this shouldn't have the label "documentary" is, that the science behind it is pseudo science and can't be proven. It's very well produced and contains some small dramatic sequences. Most of the movie is interviews or narrated drama sequences. The plot of the movie can be summed up in one sentence: Think about what you want, and you'll get it. Your brain will act like a magnet and retract what you desire.

As a scientist I laughed out loud a few times during the "explanations". It's like Penn and Tellers "bullshit" - only in reverse. But that doesn't make the movie a waste of time. I'm a firm beliver in positive thinking and most of the concepts in "The Secret" are simply Positive Thinking reframed into something else. It contains some very fine advices on life and should not be dismissed due to the factual errors.

[edit] Criticism

Isn't this just a libereal-christian attempt at doing a Dan Brown in reverse? The listed scientists and scholars may have all believed in the power of positive attitude, but that is hardly evidence of a clandestine "Secret" society hiding in the shadows preserving the truth. All one has to do it look at any of the Bhuddist writings and you can find the Law of Attraction (perhaps called something else) everywhere. The whole thing is nothing more than a marketing gimmic in Dan Brown style. One would be better off reading the 7-Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. Granted, the title of the book is a marketing gimic in itself, but at least the content delivers.

The Secret was referred to as both a "documentary" and a "movie" in the article. First, it is irresponsible to refer to this film as a documentary (unless you consider self-help videos as documentaries too). Second, the article needs to be consistent with its terminology. I've replaced both instances with "film".

I updated the Secret Teachers section to more accurately reflect the importance of the people listed. The previous version included gems such as "transformational leading world renowned experts" which clearly isn't the case. I was particularly amused that one of the fields listed was "world leadership". This is promotional text, not factual.

I reverted the article to the version I last created. Too both 84.154.24.51 and Mamurph you cant just remove criticism because you dont like it. Also the editing of the description of the film to influence its credibility as a Film based on facts rather than claims is transparent and silly. DaSilvaArtur 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the removal of the critcism that the film claims the information in the film was banned by the church. The reason for its deletion that it was false that the movie claimed this, but if you check out the trailer for the film you will cleary see they propose the idea was banned by the church and that elite groups tried to hide it. DaSilvaArtur 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where else to comment on this, so I've done so under Criticism.

There is a rather aggressive marketing campaign being run on the Internet about this documentary. This article on Wikipedia seems to be a positive light and is probably being used for promotional purposes. In many of the Wikipedia articles that I believe are more credible, there is always free minded opinion raising questions.

However, in this article I hardly read anything negative about the documentary (which by the way, this documentary uses dramatised scenes as reconstructions of events which remains unproven as having occurred), but I don't think this docu was produced with the intention of public broadcast. The circles that gave me a copy of this disc is self help fanatics, even if they are good people.

Under the section that DaSilvaArtur has edited; The movie itself may seem to insinuate that Church and State has through the centuries been trying to surpress "the secret". However, I didn't need this movie to tell me about the "Law of Attraction", it's common sense to those of us that live with optimism as a way of life, so even if it was true, I don't think the "Church" succeedded in surpressing it.

Esther Hicks, previously interviewed with husband Jerry on "The Secret", said thisthis after the movie failed to air on Australian television, and after many fans bombarded them with emails and messages about their decision to (seemingly) not be involved in the Extended Edition;

... Jerry and I were uncomfortable with what felt to us like a rather aggressive marketing campaign (just not our style, nothing wrong with it) ..." - Ester Hicks

It's likely that this is documentary is here to make a buck, and therefore should not be given the credibility of a documentary that featured on Discovery Channel or the like. It's essentially a self-help device, which not everyone is going to be buying into. This being said, I have not found any negative articles on the Internet talking about this documentary, but perhaps not enough people have caught onto it. I will be forwarding it to (at least) Penn & Teller. They've done a documentary about self help mania, and this will fit neatly into that category.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Credibility must be earned, not gleaned by editing information on Wikipedia.

--ObseloV 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film description

The film description has been changed to "essayistic" from "motivational", I dispute this change as the term "essayistic" is vague at best, and I think "motivational" is better. The "self help" description was also removed, and while I dont dispute that as much, it is quite fitting based on the fact that this movie is based on the "Master Key systems" book which is usualy found in a Self help section of a bookshop. DaSilvaArtur 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I dispute the removal of part of the plot which describes "Law of Attraction", since the film is based on this theory, and the explanation of the theory was taken directly from the movies website, I see no reason for its deletion. DaSilvaArtur 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please explain what this movie is ACTUALLY about. At least a sentence explaining what the "Law of Attraction" is, or what "The Secret" actually is.

It's a blatent attempt at conning unsuspecting folks into parting with their hard-earned cash by promoting one of the worst examples of psudo-science non-sequiturs I've ever come across. Total ficticious garbage - don't waste your time (let alone your money) with it. T h e M a v e r i c k 03:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
They explain it on their video, why 92% of the wealth belongs to 1% of the people. It's because foolishness attracts fools, who are soon parted with 100% of their money, which is transferrerd to that special 1% who know how to attract money. 66.245.192.146 07:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

I don't think this section is needed, espccially in its current form. I think most people assume a film will recieve praise by alot, but with criticism its not allways the case, also criticism tends to point out the parts it disagrees with, while praise here just goes along the lines of "wow its great." DaSilvaArtur 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed it because it basically was a copied and pasted list of testimonials from the official web site and forums. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The whole secret teachers section reads as advertisement

I will mark the article with the appropriate tab, and propose not to be removed unless certain style corrections are made. There have been attempts to rectify this article (with citations etc) which always end up being reverted without any justification to the previous style of writing. Right now the matter of conflict seems to be whether this is a movie or a documentary film. In my opinion these statements are against NPOV


  • That are featured scientists in the fields of quantum physics, psychology, philosophy, medicine that affirm on the efficiency of the proposed method. Feng Sui, metaphysics and "personal development"(sic) were also misleadingly included among the sciences.
    • what is true and is purposefully omitted (and repeatedly deleted when it was mentioned) is that ALL the physicists, doctors and psychologists that contributed to this film are distanced from their peers , have not published in a peer reviewed journal for many years, are closely affiliated to the new age movement and make PROFIT from this either by direct cooperation with a new age organization or/and by buy selling motivational (NOT scientific) books. What these people (especially the physicists) are doing is purposefully evoking the so-called quantum folklore and it's mysterious and improbable connotations to legitimize their positions (most prominent in the sister movie "what the bleep do we know" where the same persons are present again). So:
        • John Haggelin: physicist. Left superstring theory for i)transcendental meditation ii) yogic flying iii)struggle for ascention to the position of the president of the united states of America (thrice) iv) last study on meditation's effect on crime in Washington, D.C. v)currently holds a position in Maharishi University of Management
        • Fred Alan Wolf (a.k.a. Dr Quantum (sic)) Away from academic life for at least 19 years [1]. Currently seens present and active lecturer not in physics conventions but in new age / spiritual events. Contributed to the similarly themed "what the bleep do we know" and cabala seminars. "Please attend my self-help seminars on love & management [2] or buy some of my book on the same subjects [3]"

Other say that are various things but the just sell motivational material and/or spiritual services. For instance

        • Bob Proctor is styled as a philosopher, but he holds no major or minor in philosophy. He also sells promises for succesful life ("Quantum Leap your life"-quote from his site. Quanta are really a recurring theme in this type of business I assume) Here is his site
        • Neale Donald Walsch is another new age, spiritual medium.
        • Joe Vitalie is styled as possessor of a master and a doctoral degree in metaphysics (eat this Vienna Circle! we are science! we said SCIENCE!). In his professional and revered academic life is also addressed as Mr. Fire and ,surprise!, has a "Miracles Coaching Program" just for you. You can obtain The Power of Outrageous Marketing here
        • Esther Hicks, of "Abrahamic group" is also another spirit channeler and motivational speaker.


and the list goes on like this. I cannot find not one person that speaks objectively without personal interest and without promoting himself and his business. Yet in the article all these people are implied to be independent experts on their fields that are jointly revealing an objective truth.


  • The second objection is the lengthy list of significant people that are described by the authors as advocates of the "law of attraction" . They utilize a subliminal ad hominem validation of their views by attaching them to important historical personalities in their movie, and wikipedia is used to carry as well that

message. (Instead of the list I propose the phrase "several historical personalities are described in the movie as using the said method" without further development of the subject


  • And lastly, as is apparent from the above, a criticism section where the commercial affiliations of the persons presented and the possible advertising motives of the movie is wholly justified.


I know that this whole thing is a little bit tl;dr. However, in case you disagree with me, please respect my effort and answer to my points before removing the advertisement tag.87.203.114.231

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Secret_%28film%29_b17b.html"