Talk:Contact (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

It'd be interesting to see a discussion of what major differences there were between the book and the film. i.e Porter Goss being an older man and not a romantic interest, and of course the message that is found at the end of the book.

Contents

[edit] making them useless as evidence of any voyage or their time on the beach

And what of the hours of static on the apparent "1 second journey"?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book vs film

One interesting difference between the book and the film is the motivation of the aliens. In the book, it is entirely technical, in the film, it is entirely spiritual. This, imho, is a superior insight re what would exactly constitute an advanced intelligence, perhaps it would just be one that has finally resolved the root of religious insight in a way compatible with science, while at the same time, resolving the idiot savant ignorance that characterizes many scientific pedants.

In the book it is still cleverly balanced to address and resolve Ellie's own doubts and thoughts concerning science and religion. Since she attains some sort of katarsis at the end, their efforts seem successful considering she is a perfect matcth to the intended psychological profile. The spiritual component is present all the time in a subtle form, and the final revelation confirms it. --Arny 09:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

One interesting asymmetry in the film that is often overlooked, is the discrepancy between the purely technical content of the original message, and the purely spiritual content of the final meeting. Also, the question of why the original contact message had no information re the motivation for the trip, i.e. the question of why go? was never addressed. One might conclude that the alien intelligence realized that if they explained their desire for a spiritual meeting, then the humans would never go, so the original message was actually a lure or ruse to tempt the technologically obsessed humans into a direct confrontation with a spiritual message.

All in all, I liked the book more than the movie. I don't believe the film had successfully captured what Sagan really wanted to say. One more change remains unclear to me... in the novel, she lost ONLY the father, not the mother. She raised her, sent her to college etc. Why did they kill the mother too in the movie? WHO raised Ellie then? So how she did manage to become a scientist and not a social case? Arny
Unlcles, Aunts, Grandparents it's not really that weird for a child with no parents to get a normal life
Ok, ok, but it wasn't specified in the film, like it was in the book. Moreover, in the book the relationship between Ellie and her mother plays a part in the story. Arny 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science wins over faith

It puzzels me that nobody seems to see that there is a big difference between the book and the film. In the book science scores a big victory over faith. Elli gets the information that inside the fundamental physical constants are coded informations that are placed there by an intelligent being (the creator!). Elli sets some numbercrunchers on that task and gets an image of a circle in the constant everybody knows as PI. So Sagans ultimate message in this book is crystal clear: If there is a god he will leave a message that science will find and tackle to decode. Faith alone is totaly useless and science is the true faith that will prove that there is a god or will falsify him/her. (Sorry for bad english! I am a german.)

[edit] "Contact" and religion

Needs to be cleaned up as it sounds like a high school freshman's essay examining a theme in the film.

I redid this section. It could still use a little work in it but I feel it's a good start.Dominic 01:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Any one knoe which photoage in the movie is located i Pensacola...I read some where that a small portion of the movie was filmed in Pensacola?

[edit] Missing line after the public hearing:

I feel it is important to point out that in an interview with Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor on Freethought Radio (October 28, 2006), Ann Druyan states that there was a line that did not make it into the film that she and Carl Sagan had wanted in as Matthew McConaughey would not say it. In the book version and the original script as McConaughey's character leaves the public hearing he was to be asked what he had learned from all of the recent events to which his character would have responded "I have learned that my god is too small."

Unitg3d 16:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ENTIRE POINT OF FILM MISSED:

I think this section of the article wrong. It says, "Dr. Arroway's main reason for her atheism is lack of proof, which Joss — and ultimately the aliens themselves — show her does not always justify lack of belief (ie, that absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence).
This is completely nonsensical. Ellie simply 'lacks belief' as the above says. And a lack of evidence does indeed justify a lack of belief. The aliens, nor the message of the film, said otherwise. In addition, that position is entirely consistent with the true statement: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This is because simply 'lacking belief' doesn't mean you hold the belief that something cannot possibly exist. Therefore, you don't need 'evidence of absence'.
Then the section goes on to say, "An ironic twist in the film occurs at the end, when Dr. Arroway herself must insist that others believe in her without any proof."
This is absolutely not what happens in the film. Ellie acts exactly opposite to believers. She, in fact, gives the perfect rational example of what a person should do when faced with a compelling experience they can't prove to others. Far from insisting others believe her without proof, she says the opposite, as shown below...
SENATOR
Dr. Arroway. You come to us with no evidence, no record, no artifacts, only a story that, to put it mildly, strains credibility. Over half a trillion dollars was spent, dozens of lives were lost, are you really gonna sit there and tell us we should just take this all on faith?
ELLIE
Is it possible that it didn’t happen, yes. As a scientist I must concede that, I must volunteer that.
KITZ
Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You admit that you have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your story?
ELLIE
Yes.
KITZ
You admit that you very well may have hallucinated this whole thing.
ELLIE
Yes.
KITZ
You admit that if you were in our position, you will respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism?
ELLIE
Yes.
KITZ
(Yelling) Then why don’t you simply withdraw your testimony and concede that this journey to the center of the galaxy, in fact, never took place?!
ELLIE
Because I can’t. I had an experience I can’t prove... I wish I could share that... but that continues to be my wish.
So, even though she has a first-person experience that seemed real to her, she was willing to (1) admit she had no evidence, (2) concede that it might not have happened and just been a delusion, and (3) doesn't blame others for doubting her! This is not at all what religious believers tend to do or say. What the film provided was a blueprint for how a rational empiricist is to act and expect others to act when they have experiences they can't prove - and it was also an admonition of those who don't concede these three points when it comes to their religious experiences. In one of the last scenes, Ellie is asked if life exists in the universe. Compare the following to how a conservative religious person would respond and you'll see the moral of the film...
KID
Are there other people out there in the Universe?
ELLIE
That’s a good question. What do you think, huh?
KID
I don’t know.
ELLIE
That’s a good answer. A skeptic, huh? The most important thing is that you all keep searching for your own answers.
VAST difference. --Daniel 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Why don't you rewrite the section? Slowmover 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry everyone who is looking for my user information or whatnot, I really need to create a wikipedia username. I came on here wanting to just give a suggestion, not one that necessarily needs to be made, but an idea. I personally feel that the title "Cantact and religion" does not work as well as "Contact and faith" would. I know that it is trivial, but i just that that faith is maybe a better word to use. Just a suggestion, and nothing aginst the person who entered the original title, just thought that maybe it would work better. Anyone care to share their thoughts? - Blake Edwards (b_edwards1015@yahoo.com)

[edit] Religion af Palmer Joss

Palmer Joss says at one point that he "couldn't stand the celibacy thing". Does that not indicate a catholic belief, since this is the only major religion demanding celibacy from it's priests? --Nikolaj Winther 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Ellie really go?

so did ellie really go anywhere? or did she just drop thru and it was all a dream?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.4.61 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-22t08:04:04z

I just watched it again, and everything in the movie indicates that she did — including the 18 hours of static.
I think the biggest thing suggesting that Ellie possibly didn't travel to Vega and beyond, is her poster of the quadruple star system and planet. She has it behind her phone in her bedroom at Aricibo (see the scene where she blows off Palmer), and behind her computer in her bedroom when she's at the VLA (see the scene when she gets the email/IM/call/fax to meet Hadden).
When she's travelling in the machine, just before she sees the alien city and says "They're alive." (after the ghost version of "They're alive.") she sees a system and planet that is very similar. This may indicate that she just imaged the trip, as the odds of her travelling past a system that is so similar to her poster is too unlikely. The palm tree on the coast is explained — the poster not so much, in fact the alien acknowledges the transport system.
Having Ellie parrot the fallacious "awful waste of space" still ruins the ending for me, especially considering the "signature" in the book. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-27t18:20z
I don't think it has anything to do with fallacies. It is a dream, a motivation for her work. She wishes it to be true. One should distinguish arguments and proofs from hopes, half-jokes or mere wishful thinking, and I think the character does that just fine. The only problem I had with Ellie was that she didn't notice the static on the tape, but nobody's perfect.
Personally I don't like the theme of the movie though (and I haven't read the book), as it waters down what could be an interesting thought experiment with cliched religious arguments, and withholding the evidence of the tape is a bit cheap too. Also the inability of the scientists to convincingly ascertain the source of the signal raised some eyebrows, and there's the device to study, so it's not merely one person's hallucinations, either. Nor is it believable that Hadden pulled a machine that helps in FTL travel out of his hat, so in time it should be verifiably alien. And perhaps pretty soon, as that device should be quite remarkable! With all the evidence that should be there it's ludicrous that many "sensible" characters in the film hold Ellie's story to be just as (or less!) plausible than some completely unsubstantiated religious beliefs, and the portrayal of those characters as behaving sensibly was a bit irritating. They should have demanded more investigation and research into the workings of the device. It took loads of money to build, so they had to have a lot of confidence in the project. Why does all that suddenly go out of the window when Ellie doesn't bring aliens back with her or something? Surely her travel did nothing to lower the plausibility of the whole alien thing, even if it didn't raise it much. But I guess the film makers (or the book writer?) had to have a soothing "all beliefs are equal unless you chant monotonously" conclusion that leaves everyone with a warm, fuzzy feeling and someone to laugh at in the end. 130.234.170.84 16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton's remarks

What footage exactly was this taken from? What was Clinton really talking about? The remarks mentioned some type of discovery and about analyzing facts/data. --JOK3R 22:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always presumed it may have been from an address regarding the microbes discovered on Mars some years ago. Elijya 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here it is, read the article for ALH84001. Elijya 17:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signal Not Actually Sending Prime Numbers

I just watched the movie, when we got to the part where they discover that its sending prime numbers I started counting with them. 2 3 5 7 11 are all there. But then they continue talking and the signal continues with no more pauses! Can someone double check that! They say later that the signal goes through all primes from 2 to 101 so this would be a sereous error. Good luck chaps, -Jonathan

Yes it is an error, but it is not too distracting I think. I as well could not help but to count the numbers as the pulses went on and noticed the same thing. They didn't just skip 13 but 17, 19, 23, 29 and 31 also. Then after about 34 pulses the scene changes to them talking to the guy on the space station, and following that they show the list of primes from 2 to 101. I think the film is still enjoyable regardless ;) At least they established the importance of the prime numbers in detecting the signal, which was the main thing. --Robomojo 09:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

"An ironic twist in the film occurs at the end, when Joss has faith in Arroway's story even without any proof." <-- There is a contrast between what might be expected and what actually happens because early in the movie Arroway explains the importance of evidence in her way of thinking and she questions if it makes sense to have faith without evidence. Then at the end, Joss has faith in her and she is very glad. Maybe it is not really irony because we realize that Arroway has learned to accept and appreciate Joss' faith. --JWSchmidt 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the irony either, nor any twist. Wasn't Joss the character that had faith in things without proof, surely this is in character for him? It'd be more ironic if Arroway now had faith in things without proof, but she doesn't, she only has proof that she can't give to others. Also this is more about Joss believing what Arroway says, she's glad that he believes her, not that he believes things in general. People usually are glad when someone (especially a close person) believes them. One can't twist this into a statement that Arroway has thrown away her principles about rational belief, or that she has learned that "sometimes it's better to have unsubstantiated beliefs, e.g. when it's about my claims". She says as much, responding "yes" to "You admit that if you were in our position, you will respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism?" 130.234.170.84 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similitude

Jake Busey, as Joseph, the religious fanatic-extremist preacher who blew up the first machine, is looking amazingly like Christopher Lambert as Lord Raiden in Mortal Kombat. E.Cortez 16:53, 07 July 2006.

Neat.

[edit] Cast

I placed the Cast section in the article. Use Jeandré removed it giving the reason that the most imported roles all already mentioned in the infobox. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so I do think that there can be lists of casts in movie articles. Before removing it again please start a discussion here to see what a=others think about this. Ik.pas.aan 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A copy paste from IMDb ("..."s included) with the "Cantina Woman" (who doesn't have any other credits according to IMDb [1]) but leaving out more notables like Hadden, Kitz, Constantine, Joseph, Rank, and Clinton? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, if someone wants to know who played the Cantina Woman, IMDb is the place to go. Cast lists at IMDB, important characters (and who plays them) in an ancyclopedic article at WP. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-28t18:02z
With this reasoning you can edit out most of the cast lists on wikipedia film articles. For an example see Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Ik.pas.aan 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is intended to provide a brief overview of the most important information, and the body of the article to expand on this brief summary. The fuller cast list, with characters, is encyclopaedic information which cannot fit into the infobox, and seems quite appropriate in the body of the article. There are currently four people starring who are listed in the infobox, and 10 people with Wikipedia articles listed in the cast section. The information is by no means indiscriminate. That said, there is generally a consensus against listing people who are not notable to have Wikipedia articles. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My removal of the bit parts cast has been reverted twice, so I'm leaving it to someone else to remove. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-04t13:12z

[edit] Third opinion

Let's refrain from adding credits for minor characters to this cast list, IMDB is the place to for this kind of information. If screentime and overall significance for the story add up to a notable performance, that could land the actor in question ... say, some sort of award in a supporting role category, by all means put her in. I certainly cannot imagine seeing the Cantina Woman thank the Academy. - Cyrus XIII 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Anachronistic" MLK speech in opening shot not so anachronistic

The article mentions that radio signals meant to indicate the distance from Earth are heard during the fictional journey that makes up the opening shot. The article then mentions that we hear MLK as the camera passes Saturn, only 1 light hour away, and that this is inaccurate since the film is set in 1997. The timing is perhaps inaccurate, but not by as much as the article implies; if the opening shot ends coming out of "young Ellie's" eyes, and the adult Ellie is in her late 30's in 1997 (implied by Jodie Foster's own appearance, and I suppose a plausible age for a prodigy like Ellie to become a senior lead scientist), that sets "young Ellie" in the mid 1960's, not too far off from MLK's 1963 speech. --Ajasen 01:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That shot also has the 1993 released song God Shuffled His Feet.
A rationalization could be that the MLK speech would still be played on modern TV, and it's just dumb luck that the FTL camera moving away from Earth is picking up older documentaries in perfect reverse chronological order. Hollywood... -- Jeandré, 2007-03-04t13:12z

[edit] Chronology edit

I made a small fix in the chronology of the plot section. Ellie's "Encyclopedia Galactica" and Drumlin's "billion new commandments" comments are refering to the encrypted pages of text, before Hadden shows Ellie how the pages fit together to reveal the key to decoding the machine's blueprints. The original version had those comments refering to the machine itself, which wasn't right. --Robomojo 10:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects section: description of mirror/hallway sequence

"[...]the film switches from point-of-view of the camera to a view of the reflection on the bathroom mirror in mid-hallway."

Actually, the entire sequence, from the popcorn on the floor, with Ellie running up the stairs, is flipped as if in a mirror. The establishing footage of the popcorn on the floor (as Ellie is descending the staircase) shows the stairs (looking from above) to be on screen-right, and the popcorn having spilled from screen-left.

After Ellie's brief dialogue, the shot returns to the staircase, but this time, the popcorn is spilled from screen-right, the stairs are screen-left, and the entire sequence is as if it were shot in a mirror, because technically the shot *is* in the mirror, the mirror's point of view. The only point the camera switches point-of-view is from mirror to camera (not "camera to a view of the reflection," as is stated in the report), and it is not mid-way but near the end of the shot, when Ellie opens the mirror door.

As far as I can tell, the entire shot is slightly darkened as well, as if to give the appearance of light being somewhat removed/once-more reflected, like mirrors tend to be, but would this be a subjective point?

I will gladly update this minor error. In fact, it would've taken less time to do so than write this edit, but as I'm new here, I wasn't sure what the etiquette is on changes that aren't spelling/grammar related (which I do more frequently).Keraunoscopia 08:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut out the fluff

I came to this page and saw that notice above the plot summary, and after reading the plot, I instantly knew what it was talking about. It claims the section is too long. Well, quite frankly, it is. And that's because of all the unnecessary stuff. Part of it is the use of decriptive words not necessary, most of which I removed in my edit. Another part of it is that we should only be focusing on the main points of the movie here. If it's a plot summary, we need to literally summarize the plot. Stating every last detail of it is not necessary as long as the main points are covered. See Déjà Vu (film) for the sort of idea I'm talking about. Now, it doesn't have to be THAT short, but it doesn't have to be overly long either. I only cut out the "fluff" (as I like to call it) in my edit, but the actual plot synopsis needs to be shortened by a large amount. 24.15.53.225 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTH with the credits..

Why does the "cast" section take up 95% of the whole page? If I wanted to see who was all involved in the making of this movie, I'd simply go to another website, or *gasp*, watch the damn movie. It should most definitely be removed. As a matter of fact, I think I'll handle that myself...ShinraiTS4 (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Contact ver2.jpg

Image:Contact ver2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This bot has a bad habit of spamming, if this is actually true, disregard this (my post) message. Milonica (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Reaction

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most movie pages have a short blurb about the movie's reception. Perhaps this could be bundled with the rewards section? 67.40.184.137 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards?

Where is the awards section for this movie. As far as I remember, it was nominated for several academy awards including best actress for Foster. Along with the reaction section missing as well (see note above) I'd like to see this article expanded. Milonica (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)