Talk:The Quiet Earth (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Quiet Earth Poster.jpg

Image:The Quiet Earth Poster.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) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My god, what happens at the end?????

Ich merke, dass ich mit meinem Versuch, das Ende eindeutig zu interpretieren, scheitere. Tatsächlich ist es so, wie ich früher schon einmal formuliert habe, dass das Ende zwei Zeichen gibt, die jeweils in unterschiedliche Richtungen weisen und daher nicht eindeutig interpretiert werden können. Das wiederum weist in die Richtung die ja tatsächlich ein Thema des Films ist: Die genauen Ursagen und die Effekte von „Flashlight“ sind Zac letztlich nicht in allen Einzelheiten vertraut. Mit der stoischen Ruhe des Naturwissenschaftlers versucht er zwar Erklärungen zu finden und er interpretiert wohl auch einiges richtig, wie er voraussagt, dass es einen weiteren „Effekt“ geben wird und auch den ungefähren Zeitpunkt ausmacht (er irrt nur insoweit, als der Effekt ein paar Stunden früher eintritt). Aber was genau eigentlich passiert ist, physikalisch vor allem, kann er nur ahnen. Somit gehe ich davon aus, dass das Ende wirklich zeigen soll, dass das Ganze unbeherrschbar und unverstehbar geworden ist. Ich merke deswegen, dass ich mich geirrt habe mit meiner Interpretation, da ich nun zwei sehr kleine und kurze Details beobachtete: Beim ersten Effekt hört man einen Ton einige Sekunden vor dem Effekt, es ist eine Art Mischung zwischen einem Rauschen und einem Zischen. Im Moment, in dem der Effekt beginnt, wird die Sonne Schwarz. Genau diese Abfolge kommt auch zu dem Zeitpunkt, da Zac die Sprengladung des Trucks zündet: Wir hören draußen, bei Joanne und Api das Rauschen/Zischen (sehr viel lauter als am Anfang, da es diesmal draußen ist) und sehen dann in dem Moment, in dem Zac die Bombe zündet (Bruchteile einer Sekunde danach) die dunkle Sonne. Das weist unmittelbar darauf hin, dass die Standarderklärung für das Ende des Films stimmt, dass der Effekt tatsächlich auftritt, als Zac stirbt, insofern überlebt er. Dann aber kann man nicht mehr plausibel erklären, wieso Zac eigentlich diesmal das Licht am Ende des Tunnels erreicht. Dass er das Ende des Tunnels erreicht zeigt doch eigentlich, dass diesmal etwas ANDERS ist, als beim ersten Mal. D. h. das Ende gibt Signale in unterschiedliche Interpretationsrichtungen. Das Ende kann nicht Erzählungswissenschaftlich eindeutig interpretiert werden. Da man aber annehmen kann, das die Macher des Films bewusst zwei „Fährten“ gelegt haben, wäre das Ende so zu interpretieren, wie am Anfang gesagt: Dinge passieren, die nicht mehr eindeutig erklärbar sind. Was mir jemand, der sich mit dem Film auseinander gesetzt hat geschrieben hat, kommt noch am nächsten: Zac is reborn a second time into a world where the fabric of reality has been much more seriously compromised than it was after the first “effect”. --Bufi (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to "MY God..."

Thnks for your insight, "Bufi". I used the Microsoft tranlation software, which is crude, of couse, but got the gist of your ruminations. The ambiguous ending I think is what sets the movie apart from its earlier and similar couterparts. When you mentioned the "hissing" and "tone" right after the 'black sun" effect, two things come to mind. As in the novel, Zac finally acertains that the suspended clock report at 6:12 is a reference to the Book of Revealations. But so is the "black sun" visual mentioned in that text. Second, in the numerous, ghastly atomic explosion experiments the US, France, UK and USSR conducted, two phenmenon among many were consistent with the conflagations: X-Rays visually making the photo field recorded of the didtant blast zone to take on negative colors (red and black "sun", as in the negatives of now antiquated flash-photo films). And the "tone" and "hissing" sounds prior to and announcing the "Effect". This last one the experimenters noticed that when active communication wires melted at "ground zero" during an explosion, the sound on the receiver at the other end (hopefully many, many miles aways,) would give a shrill tone , like an early TV station's call signal identifier. This of course was discovered as yet another effect of a nuclear explosion. As in the 1961AD movie "Fail Safe", the Pentagon general informs the Those in the NORAD-like bunker that the US embassy personnel slated to be sacrificed by the explosion of a rouge US nuke bomb that when he hears a shrill tone at the other end of his party's phone line "THAT WILL BE THE WIRES OF THE AMBASSADOR'S PHONE INSTANTLY MELTING"!!! (Indicating that that the intended target-all of Moscow-has been obliterated.) Curious how the "Effect" also has similarities to the NEUTRON BOMB which no one has talked about since the Carter Administration. Like I said, the final two minutes made the film unique and intriguing. 173.2.113.202 (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Minor observations

Sunrise in Auckland on July 5th is around 7:34am NZT so the sun wasn't up when the effect happened. The film suggests the effect was after sunrise but doesn't explicitly state this. The date and Project Flashlight involving a new energy source seemed to imply it was an American project, although with global cooperation. Project Flashlight would have been activated on July 4th in most of the world, 2:12pm EDT on that date (18:12 UTC). If that is the meaning is it a hint it turned out worse then Three Mile Island? Skywayman (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would the date - 5 July not 4 July - and the name suggest an American project? Flashlight may once have been a purely American term for a torch, but is used more widely now. More importantly, this is a film intended for international, i.e. American, sales. So the scriptwriter would have used Flashlight instead of the more correct Torchlight.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hrm didn't intend to make the connection between torch and flashlight but that is interesting. I was thinking it was an American project as Three Mile Island was then a recent event combined with New Zealand's anti nuclear policy. Then again I could be reading to much into that date but it seemed like a subtle easter egg. Skywayman (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Other Observations

These should have been obvious. One, the movie was based on the 1959AD American film "The World, the Flesh, and the Devil", starring Harry Belafonte and the late Inge Stevens. Many Pan-Africanos. and certainly Pacific region natives should take offense to the name of the second male in the film "Api" (A-P-I, or "Ape"). Third, there is a running theme in the movie that I'm sure the writer and\or director was intentional in putting words in the mouth of the character "Api" "HE'S A SCIENTIST, HE TELLS LIES, HE-TELLS-LIES!!!". Otherwise, the movie was intriguing and enjoyable for any true sci-fi fan (or at least those of us who insist on logical continuity, or rational plausibiltiy). For those who are ponderous about the intriguing ending, well, allow me to offer my contribution. When Zack was teleported to another planet(dimension?), and saw the awesome event of a rising Saturn-like planet in the horizon, I can't help but think that this image develops-in my mind anyway-a gestalt of a philosphical message of some sort. The planet Saturn (nameed after the old, deposed Greek diety Saturnus, supplanted by his sons Dis and Jove (Jupiter), represented the Scientist Zac, his identity and evolutionary pedigree as a homo-sapien being thrown-back, or actually wiped from the Earth, leaving premodial chaos and irrantionality in its place(Joanne and Api.) I hope I'm taking nothing away from the director's observations. (He's right in that insering a little ambiguity in certain movies (especially sci-fi, mystery, and horror genres is alaways good.) In this light, I say say Bravo! 69.126.238.184 (User talk) 20:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Regardless of how "obvious" a point is, to include it in an article without sourcing constitutes Original Research, which is inappropriate for inclusion. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Api is a fairly common pasifika given name. In the parent languages of the Austronesian family it means "Fire". No one in New Zealand or the Pacific region would connect it with ape. (Italian appears to be the only language where the word has that meaning). dramatic (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick internet search brings up a few pages which show "Api" to be a standard Maori male given name, or an abbreviation of longer given names. Perhaps you should leave your racism in America, before accusing others of the same.

One-man films

I removed Category:One-man films. Although there are sequences where there's only one person, the film hinges on the fact that there are, in fact, three people left. Without the love triangle, the film's plot makes no sense. I don't really see how you can call it a one-man film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Last Man on Earth

has no one ever accused that show of plagiarizing the film? the pilot ep is almost identical for the first 90% or so! 2601:19C:527F:A680:595:8072:F1F3:428 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)