Talk:Contact (1997 film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Contact (1997 film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Differences between the film and the novel

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.

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)

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)

Science wins over faith

It puzzles 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. From this it might seem to follow that faith alone is totaly useless and science is the true faith that will prove whether there is a god or will falsify belief in one. (Sorry for bad english! I am a german.) [corrections added]C d h (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

First, this article is about the movie, not the book. The book is covered in Contact (novel). Second, that conclusion about the meaning of the message in

pi

as revealed in the book is filled with original research. It's pretty evident that it's a literary surprise ending, not the least of which clue of was that Sagan was a lifelong, vocal atheist. Xihr 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Xihr, on that first point... as you say, the article is about the movie, not the book, but C d h appears to be responding to this section of the talk page which is specifically "Book vs Film." AzureCitizen (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, either way, the claim is clearly original research, even if it were true, which I think it clearly isn't for the reasons I gave above. Xihr 03:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that original research and speculation as to what Sagan intended has no place in either article here on Wiki (movie or film). No real editorial issues here. But your comments have raised my curiosity. Are you saying that you don't think Sagan was implying that if there was a supreme omnipotent creator/designer of the universe, he could and should have left a message that only science is equipped to find and reveal? If that wasn't what Sagan was doing, why do you think he put that in the novel, including the part about what the alien intelligence thought of the coded message in Pi? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We're now entering forum territory, but yes, I think it's quite clear that Sagan didn't think that. He was writing a fictional novel, and threw in a part that showed that he was willing to shatter expectations and deliver something that no one expected to make an awfully entertaining read. To reiterate: Sagan was a life-long, vocal atheist; many of his books are entirely devoted to the subject. He did not believe that there was a god. He put one in one of his stories (to the surprise of the protagonist and surely every reader) to entertain. (It wasn't included in the film, of course, but that's understandable -- it's hard to see how that notion would have translated well at all, sincere or not.) Xihr 08:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have entered forum territory, LOL. I'll resign myself to posting this closing reply if you don't feel we should continue the discussion any further on this specific topic which raised my curiosity and has me mentally revisiting the end of the novel Contact. I wanted to respond to tell you that I can acknowledge your opinion on the subject - that perhaps Sagan wanted to invoke a literary twist in the ending and surprise his critics with something they wouldn't have expected from him - and I would outright agree with you on the point that this would not have translated well from book to film, hence it was ommitted. But I think you might want to reconsider if you reflect on the whole of Sagan's life and works into account. You've probably read his later works, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, Science as a Candle in the Dark, Billions and Billions, Pale Blue Dot, etc. I've read them multiple times and still marvel at his genius. Of course, I also thoroughly enjoyed reading Dawkin's The God Delusion and Harris's The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. I am of the opinion that although Sagan was an atheist, and he was a vocal promoter of rational thought, healthy skepticism, and science, he was not a vocal atheist per se. He never attacked religion in the way Dawkins or Harris do. In fact, I noticed one of the Wiki pages carries this entry on him: "[Sagan]... rejoiced in the words of Albert Einstein (quoted on the last page of Billions and Billions) who could 'not conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts.' Sagan's only caveat was the dig about feeble souls. He felt it was insulting to believers. Such decency was typical of the man." (See Wiki page on "List of Atheists"). But more to the point, everything Sagan ever published and said in public was designed to provoke the reader or the listener to think. Based on what I understand of how Sagan approached science and religion, I don't think he was shooting for a simple and convenient literary surprise ending in his only fictional novel as a nod to those who would have expected him (as an atheist) to not cede any ground to belief in a supreme omnipotent creator of the universe. Instead, I think it highly likely he was trying to get theist-minded persons to subtly consider this startling point: that if there is a God, he could have left us a sign, something woven into the creation of the universe itself, to let us know he exists. And if there is a way to know that, it is science that will ultimately reveal it, not faith. This message is very consistent with Sagan's style of atheism and his love of scientific reason and rational inquiry and strikes me as a far more compelling basis for his intentions in including the message in Pi in a fictional novel where he tried very hard to balance the conflict between science and religion lest readers be turned off part way through because their hearts lay too close to one side of the aisle or the other. Of course, in the end it's all about interpretation here so I won't waste your time any further if you still feel strongly it's just a surprise literary plot device by Sagan to enamor believers who would be surprised and delighted that Sagan would capitulate and simply acknowledge God's existence. Thanks for reading, sorry this got a little long winded... AzureCitizen (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"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?

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)

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)

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 its priests? --Nikolaj Winther 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's never stated, and so speculation about what it might be is original research. There's no evidence that's what the filmmakers were thinking of. Xihr 05:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm fairly certain she really went. I mean, how that billionare design that vortex-magic thingy, even if it was just special effects. AND THE CAMERA RECORDED 18 HOURS OF STATIC, WHICH IS HOW LONG ELLIE SAID THAT SHE'D BEEN GONE. --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I noticed that too but it would probably been pretty difficult to film that section if they did try to include all the numbers. You can tell the sound was being played while they were talking, actually right then. Think of a song being played while they were talking, and every time they had to go back and forth with the actors, they had to stop the song and start it exactly at the right time. I just think that this "error" is certainly forgivable and understandable. I wouldn't have wanted that job. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they could have easily just added that noise in in post. I assume that's what they do with most songs, for that very reason. lystrodom (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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

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)

"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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Criticisms from pop culture

Criticisms of the film Contact can also be found in works of popular culture. South Park, Family Guy, and/or American Dad are notable examples. We should not let our love of the film make us censor any criticisms even if the sources are judged to be “trashy”. --Loremaster (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I love South Park as much as the next person, but the Critical analysis section is for stuff like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I never called South Park "trashy", but readers can check out the Rhinoplasty wiki article if they want to know specifics. Wildroot (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think this section should be renamed Reactions to be more inclusive. Regardless, in light of the fact that the criticism that Ellie's brief encounter with an alien taking her father's form was anti-climatic has been expressed by many viewers of the film, this article is more comprehensive by readers being able to read this criticism in it rather than in another article. However, I agree that specifics (such the mere mention of the film Contact causing Mr. Garrison to become violently ill) don't need to be included in the article, which is why I did not restore them when you deleted the disputed paragraph. --Loremaster (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can type that "Ellie's brief encounter with an alien taking her father's form was anti-climatic has been expressed by many viewers of the film", but you still have to take into part of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and original research. South Park isn't the legitimate source to go for critiques, that's for those two website I listed above. Wildroot (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. With the proper phrasing and contextualization, South Park is a legitimate source. --Loremaster (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to drop the idea of including criticisms from pop culture in the Critical analysis section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

South Park reference

I think the South Park reference is trivial at best. For one, we cannot assume that the scripted line is what Matt and Trey (SP creators) believe about the movie so it's not a critical response. The reference itself is not a significant reference; it doesn't affect the plot, does not reoccur later, and basically is a throwaway "current reference" that SP is known for. It does not significant contribute to understanding the legacy of the movie itself. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wildroot (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The criticism that Ellie's brief encounter with an alien taking her father's form was anti-climatic has been expressed by many viewers of the film. This is why it is not surprising that this specific criticism keeps showing up in many works of popular culture. Regarding South Park, the reference is significant because the mere mention of the film Contact causes Mr. Garrison to become violently ill. Garrison slams the movie for having such a bad ending. According to southpark.wikia.com, Matt Stone and Trey Parker share this opinion towards the film and this is the first of many critiques of the film to appear in an episode of South Park. --Loremaster (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mick LaSalle's review is covered in the section, in which he criticizes the climax. Wildroot (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But the summary of his review does not address the specific issue raised by South Park. --Loremaster (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the views of the movie given on this show represent fictional characters and not a legitimate response. Now, if there was a secondary source that said "reaction to the conclusion of the movie was not well-received, and even joked at on shows like "South Park".", then that would be a good source to justify the inclusion of that episode, but we cannot make the connection without that. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point but I disagree that such a source is necessary to make the connection. --Loremaster (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

LaSalle's review does share the same reason why Stone/Parker hated the film. What more do you want? They all thought it was anti-climactic. Wildroot (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is notable that this criticism is expressed in works of popular culture. South Park is not the only one. Family Guy and /or American Dad contained the same criticism. --Loremaster (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you other examples: does John Goodman's article mention his monstrous depiction in Family Guy as depriving his whole family of food? Does Britney Spears mention her headless appearance in South Park? These two shows have become such famous potshots their parodies really have become trivial. Such details are only necessary in the articles of those episodes. Wildroot (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I find this line of argument utterly unconvincing. A better argument would be that we should create a In popular culture section to list notable mentions of the film Contact in works of popular culture... --Loremaster (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Such sections are strongly discouraged, unless the use of the work is highly notable (eg, if an entire SP episode was dedicated to a parody of Contact, then yes, but not one line in passing). --MASEM (t) 04:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! ;) --Loremaster (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to the many who don't think that the South Park references belong in the article. It really should be removed. --Gaunt (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has provided a solid argument against criticisms (rather than parodies) found in works of popular culture, I will expand the disputed paragraph with references to Family Guy and/or American Dad as well as other shows (I'm not sure but I think there might be a reference in Seinfeld) only when I track down the title of specific episodes. --Loremaster (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the current consensus shows that adding those additions are practically trivial. If Mr. Garrison were actually a real person, as opposed to Mick LaSalle, you might actually have had a point. Wildroot (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can be wrong. I don't think it is trivial that criticism of the film is expressed in works of popular culture when the majority of films don't generate enough interest to provoke that. Furthermore, according to southpark.wikia.com, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park) share this opinion towards the film and this is the first of many critiques of the film to appear in an episode of South Park. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(←)We can't use a wikia site to confirm this, but taking this, I discovered this old article which point to the fact that on the commentary for this season, Matt and Trey confirm this. Thus, what you need to do is confirm this and source the commentaries which now connects the facts that Matt and Trey wrote it as a dislike of that scene in the movie. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I know we can't use a wikia site to confirm this claim as a fact to be reported in the Contact article. I was only using it in the context of a conversation on the talk page. That being said, thank you for finding this article, which contains information worthy of an entry in the article's Controversies section. :) --Loremaster (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Trey Parker and Matt Stone do this to a lot of my movies/people/pop culture, how is this any different? Everyone already knows South Park is controversial. Wildroot (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that the controversy is about Warner Bros. trying to censor criticism of the film Contact from the commentary of a South Park episode. That's note-worthy. If you can't see that, it's only because you don't want to change your mind... Regardless, I consider this dispute over. --Loremaster (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Had you included the Warner Bros. corporate censorship in your earlier edits I likely would have seen what direction you were going in. Wildroot (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can we move on? --Loremaster (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard to credit the fact that we now have a whole section dedicated to a few references from South Park. Unbelievable! --Gaunt (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* The section, which is supported by a reliable source, is dedicated to a controversy about Warner Bros. trying to censor criticism of one of their films, Contact, from the commentary of an episode of South Park, a TV show they own. The inclusion of this notable fact makes this article more comprehensive. --Loremaster (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Novel differences

Since this is largely unreferenced, I'm moving this information here until it can be properly cited and sourced. I took what information I could and put it with my new rewrite. Wildroot (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation

Although the film remained relatively true to the plot of the original novel, it differed from the original book in several notable respects. In the novel, for example, five scientists undertake the journey in the "machine," whereas in the film Ellie takes the journey alone, creating a dramatic situation where the single traveler is selected. In the novel there is a female President in office, but the film uses footage of then-President Bill Clinton. Much of the characterization and dialogue of the President in the novel (including, with a few small changes, the memorable line "Twenty million people died defeating that son of a bitch, and he's our first ambassador to outer space?") was transferred to the Presidential advisor played by Angela Bassett. Due to the movie being made after the fall of the Soviet Union, the novel's subplot of a Cold War-era world united by the message (and the character of a Russian scientist with whom Ellie has a turbulent friendship) was dropped.

Also, in the novel, the destruction of the first Machine is due to sabotage, while in the film this is dramatized to be a suicide bombing by a religious cult leader identified as "Joseph." This character may be based on a fundamentalist religious leader from the novel, Billy Jo Rankin, who vigorously opposed the construction of the Machine on theological grounds.

In the novel, Ellie has a sporadic romance with Presidential science advisor Ken van der Heer. The filmmakers left der Heer out entirely and "seriously discussed characters as varied as David Drumlin and the Russian scientist who collected dirty playing cards" as Ellie's love interest before settling on Palmer Joss, played in the film by Matthew McConaughey. Without the coda or a suitable replacement, the end of the movie sees the government with more evidence of the truth of Ellie's story than she herself possesses, where the opposite was the case in the novel. Ideas that were discussed (and rejected) as possible replacement endings included a spectacular finale in which a light show in the sky is created by the extraterrestrials to prove their existence, and an ending in which Ellie (who, as the machine is taking off in the novel, thinks to herself she wishes she had had a baby) gives birth to a child.

The Machine

The Machine itself underwent a radical redesign from its novel counterpart:

In the novel, it is described as a dodecahedron-shaped vessel wrapped inside of three separate-free-floating spherical shells called benzels (the largest outer shell being approximately 30' in diameter), with a single hatch along the top of each segment. The Machine was also both built inside of- and activated from- a large hangar bay; which took the better part of ten years from when the US President authorized its construction to when it is activated. Through complex descriptions of what each part of the machine is and how it operates (or is thought to operate), the inner vessel remains stationary while the three outer shells counter-rotate perpendicular to each other along each axis (X, Y, and Z). Three Machines are built- one by the United States (which is sabotaged), one by Russia (which is plagued by malfunctions and never used), and a third one in Hokkaidō, Japan which was finally used. There is enough room inside for five occupants in cushioned seats which face each other. When the Machine arrives at its destination, the hatch opens automatically, and all five passengers exit the Machine onto a sandy beach. Later, they re-enter the Machine, and it automatically returns to Earth.
By contrast, the Machine design in the film is composed of two parts — a very large, crane-like structure standing well over 300ft-tall, and the smaller rigged traveling capsule which will make the trip to its final destination. Two identical copies are assembled, one at the Kennedy Space Center and another in Hokkaidō, Japan. Each machine consists of three massive rotating rings, supported at their points of rotation by large pillars. Directly aside the ringed complex is a tall crane with a long boom, which suspends the small travel capsule directly above the rings. The cage-like framework structure around the spherical capsule is also shaped like a dodecahedron. A retractable bridge extends to the side of the capsule leading to a wide circular hatch. When the capsule's hatch door is closed, the edge seams disappear, sealing in the occupant inside. When powered up, the Machine's rings spin up to high speed, generating a bright wormhole effect at the center of their orbits. The travel capsule is then dropped into the center of the rings, entering the wormhole. As the capsule returns to Earth, it continues the fall through the rings, landing in a catch net. While the occupant of the capsule observes an hours-long journey through a series of wormholes to a distant location, it appears to the outside observer as though the travel capsule simply dropped straight through the rings to land in the net, with no extra time elapsing.
- Ellie is never shown exiting or re-entering the Machine capsule in the film; she merely appears floating over the beach until she touches the sand.

Since construction of the novel's Machine takes so long, and requires new technologies and materials to be developed, world industries are revolutionized during this time, including the formation of several Earth-orbit space stations which contain thousands of individuals each. In contrast, the construction timeframe is much narrower in the film and there is no mention of the benefits of using alien technology in other applications.

Things that are consistent between the novel and film Machine designs-

The walls of the Machine are made of solid, opaque materials. However, when activated, the walls fade and the environment outside can be easily viewed.
The capsules are both based on dodecahedrons.
Both Machines incorporate three concentric, round objects that counter-spin perpendicular to each other; one stacked inside the other.
In the climax of both the film and novel, the traveler(s) return to Earth, awed by their journeys and are anxious to share what they have seen. However, no one outside of the Machine's effect sees anything significant happen. In the novel, the Machine's sphere shells spin up to speed, and then automatically slow down after a few moments; in the film, the travel capsule simply falls through the bright effect, and lands in the netting as if nothing had happened.
Though the traveler(s) bring electronic recording devices with [them], all are immediately erased by the effects of wormhole travel, making them useless as evidence of any voyage or their time on the beach. (However, while the recording device in the film shows nothing but static, the length of the blank recording is noted to be consistent with the length of the trip perceived by Ellie.)
No attempt is made to use the Machine again after its 'failure to perform as anticipated.' In the novel it states that the machine can only be used once.

In the novel, there is also (to me) an important final note, where the computer which has been calculating Pi in base 11 finally rattles through zeroes and ones which if rastered correctly, make up a circle.92.1.48.249 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Disambiguation

The word 'Contact' needs a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.140.14 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It already has a disambiguation page. Wildroot (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Contact (film)/GA1

Criticisms from pop culture

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticisms of the film Contact can also be found in works of popular culture. South Park, Family Guy, and/or American Dad are notable examples. We should not let our love of the film make us censor any criticisms even if the sources are judged to be “trashy”. --Loremaster (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I love South Park as much as the next person, but the Critical analysis section is for stuff like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I never called South Park "trashy", but readers can check out the Rhinoplasty wiki article if they want to know specifics. Wildroot (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think this section should be renamed Reactions to be more inclusive. Regardless, in light of the fact that the criticism that Ellie's brief encounter with an alien taking her father's form was anti-climatic has been expressed by many viewers of the film, this article is more comprehensive by readers being able to read this criticism in it rather than in another article. However, I agree that specifics (such the mere mention of the film Contact causing Mr. Garrison to become violently ill) don't need to be included in the article, which is why I did not restore them when you deleted the disputed paragraph. --Loremaster (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can type that "Ellie's brief encounter with an alien taking her father's form was anti-climatic has been expressed by many viewers of the film", but you still have to take into part of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and original research. South Park isn't the legitimate source to go for critiques, that's for those two website I listed above. Wildroot (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. With the proper phrasing and contextualization, South Park is a legitimate source. --Loremaster (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to drop the idea of including criticisms from pop culture from the Critical analysis section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)