MovieChat Forums > The Nines (2007) Discussion > The one part I didn't really get (i.e. s...

The one part I didn't really get (i.e. small plot hole)

posted 13 years ago by barriexcore
35 replies | jump to latest

So in the explanation MMM gives GGG saying he's a 9, aka a God-like figure/being but not exactly God. If we're thinking about this in religious/Christian terms, that would mean he's some sort of archangel I'm assuming.

But, at the end of the film, when he talks about killing billions of humans with a thought, she says to him "usually its carried out in your name". This to me implies that he IS actually God as opposed to just an angel or higher being.

Unless I'm mistaking this and he's just a God-like figure to the world he's created, as opposed to the actual world where "God rules all".

I'd like to think that the second half is my take on it as opposed to a plot hole/mistake by the writer's. Thoughts?

That aside, I watched this film just now on Netflix not really knowing what to expect and loved it. One of the things I really liked is that unlike most of these "deep"/"thought provoking" films that exist, it had enough wit and comedy it in as well to keep things interesting. Definitely not an average movie of this type.

I like Ryan Reynolds as a comedic actor but of course I also think he's taken a lot of crap roles. Great to see him branching out.

[–] yourmumisone 13 years ago

He created the earth, therefor he is our god. He also was created though so he himself seemed to worship that one higher power.

In christian terms, imagine if the main god prayed to did create us, but also was created himself by an even higher power.

Another example I could give would be if we(humans) were able to create our own little lesser versions of ourselves. They would not pray to our God/gods but to us.

All of the wars in God's name were fighting for him as he did create them but he himself had higher powers to refer to and each time he wished it, he destroyed the entire universe he was in (3 scenarios where 2 of them were destroyed that we know of)

[–] justchillen46 10 years ago

Another example I could give would be if we(humans) were able to create our own little lesser versions of ourselves. They would not pray to our God/gods but to us.

getting a flash of that episode of south park where he buys the sea monkeys lmao

[–] Dejay 8 years ago

I find it curious when you guys are talking about "our god" and "his god" and that they would worship each other respectively. If you look at it from this perspective it's weird.

Imagine you would create a whole universe in a bottle. Would you even want the creates in there to spend their time worshipping you and making up rules to do this and that "in his name"? Wouldn't that be unethical? After all just because you created a human (like kids) doesn't mean you own them and you can do whatever you want with them.

Imagine God does come to earth and everyone is all worshippy and he just wants to have a beer with us and talk just like two guys.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> Imagine you would create a whole universe in a bottle. Would you even want the creates in there to spend their time worshipping you and making up rules to do this and that "in his name"?

Yes and no. First off, he doesn't spend his time receiving praise from the beings he created. He takes on the persona of a human and then plays out that whole life not even realizing that he was anything but a human. And then, when that world falls apart, his self-illusion breaks down and he drops into another human's life and quickly forgets that his is the god of this world.

Occasionally, between humans, he decides to scrap the whole world and start over. He's done that 90 times now.

> After all just because you created a human (like kids) doesn't mean you own them and you can do whatever you want with them.

It kind of does. Remember, in the third segment he was a video-game designer. In that life, he creates characters. But, he can delete the characters with the click of a mouse or just delete the whole world. He created them and they are his to destroy.

To his race of beings, humans are nothing more than bugs. In fact, they were a simple creation of just this one guy. If they are deleted, no one cares. Although, he started to care about the humans in this 91st iteration.

> Imagine God does come to earth and everyone is all worshippy and he just wants to have a beer with us and talk just like two guys.

Well, that idea is the basic core of this movie. Think of it as, "Undercover Boss: The God Edition."

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] Dejay 8 years ago

> After all just because you created a human (like kids) doesn't mean you own them and you can do whatever you want with them.

It kind of does. Remember, in the third segment he was a video-game designer. In that life, he creates characters. But, he can delete the characters with the click of a mouse or just delete the whole world. He created them and they are his to destroy.

I'm always amazed at that radical belief in slavery. So if I genetically engineer a race of sentient beings I can do whatever I want with them?

Is that right inheritable? Like my children get the same right to torture or enslave those created people?

Do you agree that a parent should be allowed to kill their own children because they created them? I'm sure you don't but how is that really different from otherwise creating a person?

I mean that's some old testament *beep* Even Jesus said "Do to others as you would have them do to you". Why should this same principle not apply to God or gods?

And there is a vast gulf between video game characters / non sentient automatons, then animals who have feelings, and then again sentient and self aware people. Humans or any sentient intelligent being are never nothing more than bugs.

But it's been a while since I watched the movie. Actually not that long but it kind of fizzled out because it's a kind of confusing movie. I guess I have to watch it again since it deals with these themes but it isn't that apparent while watching it.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> So if I genetically engineer a race of sentient beings I can do whatever I want with them?

It kind of depends on how inferior they are to their creator or owner. Humans regularly enslave ants and put them on display in little plastic farms. No one complains. Humans enslave horses and cattle and that's generally accepted. But, if they are functionally equal, such as blacks, then it is wrong to enslave them.

> Is that right inheritable? Like my children get the same right to torture or enslave those created people?

Well, for the scenario you describe, that right would be transferable, just like humans buy and sell horses, fish, and computers.

> Do you agree that a parent should be allowed to kill their own children because they created them? I'm sure you don't but how is that really different from otherwise creating a person?

Well, in Biblical times it was perfectly allowed for parents to kill their children. In fact, several passages demand that parents kill their children if they displease them.

But, you do bring up a point that countless movies have explored already. Typically, the plot revolves around created a clone of yourself or others. If you create a clone of yourself, is it ethical to kill it and harvest its organs if you need a heart transplant, for example?

What if you make a clone from a sample of your neighbor's hair without them knowing? It is yours to do with as you please? Would the victim be able to demand its destruction if they found out?

Tough questions that I don't think we'll have to deal with for about a hundred years.

> Even Jesus said "Do to others as you would have them do to you". Why should this same principle not apply to God or gods?

Well, that's mostly a suggestion. When there is a big difference between the creator and the createe, that principle doesn't apply anymore. Like the difference between humans and bacteria.

> Humans or any sentient intelligent being are never nothing more than bugs.

But, humans would, indeed, seem like bugs to any being capable of creating the entire Earth and manipulating time and space. Why would such a god care at all about such an inferior creature as a human?

In fact, that is always a question I have about religion; why would a being powerful enough to create the universe and have complete knowledge and control over the past, present, and future care one little bit about humans? We've only existed for, like, a trillionth of the time the universe has existed. Tens of millions of other races in the universe have been born, grown, and died out long before us. Why are we more special than any of them?

> But it's been a while since I watched the movie. Actually not that long but it kind of fizzled out because it's a kind of confusing movie.

Indeed. And, it was designed that way so that you could get a small impression of the vast difference between whatever these gods were and humans.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] Dejay 8 years ago

Wow. Interesting!

So as long as the master race is superior it's ok to enslave other people? For example if your neighbor would genetically engineer a harem of beautiful girls / clones as sex slaves with an IQ of maybe 70... you wouldn't object to that? Even if they can clearly articulate that they don't like it? And he regularly kills them when they get too old or annoying? You wouldn't find that unethical? You wouldn't want a law passed against that?

I guess there is a deeply rooted instinct to believe in authority in humans. If you are strong enough to dominate and can get away with it, you have a right to do so. Simply because you can. So since God is the ultimate power he can do anything he wants and everything he does is moral.

But that notion of ownership you have - because you created it you own it - do you really mean that? For example, if you kill the neighbor with that sex-slave harem - do you get to keep them as slaves? Or do you think there is something divine or god-given or sacred about ownership that makes it a kind of universal law?

That "sith" ideology does make sense in a certain way - if you do have super-humans or superior beings you can defend that. You are creating more powerful beings as the pinnacle of evolution. Like if you kill all retarded people or people with certain defective genes the world would ultimately be a better place. Except that you'll end up constantly eradicating new segments of the population and as soon as your own offspring falls into that category - it becomes hypocrisy and unjustifiable.

Any rational being would of course tell you that these principles don't work as a general rule though - hence they are doomed to fail. Cooperation trumps competition in the long run - even between superior races and lesser beings. At least for any mortal being with offspring.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> So as long as the master race is superior it's ok to enslave other people?

Zoom! My point went right over your head. If one race is far ahead of another on the evolutionary scale, then the advanced race will enslave the less advanced one. Whether it is moral or not is a sliding scale that depends on the evolutionary difference between the two races. If they are far apart, like humans and ants, then it is more moral to enslave then. If they are close together, like humans and monkeys, then it is less moral to enslave them.

> For example if your neighbor would genetically engineer a harem of beautiful girls / clones as sex slaves with an IQ of maybe 70... you wouldn't object to that?

A human with an IQ of 70 is pretty close to the average human IQ of 100, so it is not morally acceptable to enslave them. Now, ask me about a race of beautiful girls engineered with no brain at all. Then I see no problem enslaving them.

> I guess there is a deeply rooted instinct to believe in authority in humans. If you are strong enough to dominate and can get away with it, you have a right to do so.

That's the law of nature. Bears eat fish. Lions are king of the jungle. Sharkskill anything they want.

> So since God is the ultimate power he can do anything he wants and everything he does is moral.

On the moral scale of gods, yes. On the moral scale of humans, no. On the moral scale of ants, no.

> For example, if you kill the neighbor with that sex-slave harem - do you get to keep them as slaves?

That has been the moral code of man for tens of thousands of years up until about 200 years ago. It's called, "Right of Conquest." Look it up.

In today's culture, the morals have changed and you aren't allowed to kill your neighbor and take all of his stuff. The closest we still have is that you can marry your neighbor and then take half his stuff in the divorce.

> Like if you kill all retarded people or people with certain defective genes the world would ultimately be a better place.

Well, that is undeniably true. But, as I have said above, even these retarded folks are human like the rest of us and so it is morally wrong to kill or enslave them.

Unfortunately, that leads to the dumbing down and weakening of the country and we end up with 50% of the people who think it is a good idea to elect Trump as our president. See the movie "Idiocracy" for more details.

> as soon as your own offspring falls into that category - it becomes hypocrisy and unjustifiable.

Of course. That is true with all laws and rules. Most people want the rules enforced against other people without mercy and without exception until they or a family member falls under those same rules. Then, they want mercy. That's just human nature.

> Any rational being would of course tell you that these principles don't work as a general rule though - hence they are doomed to fail.

Hollywood tells you that they will fail. And they will fail if implemented poorly. But, if done right, they will last for a long time. You keep mentioning slavery. Yet, slavery in America lasted for some 300 years -- longer than this country has been around. And, not counting the moral issues, the process worked quite well. Slaves were a valuable asset to the plantation owners so they took good care of them, much as you would take good care of your horses or cattle. So, the slaves rarely fought back. It was not like Hollywood tells us where it was a constant battle of will between the slaves and their owners.

And, that's the way slavery worked long before America was settled by the white man. Slavery was a necessary part of the Aztec and Roman empires. Slaves were treated fairly (except for the freedom thing) and the slaves accepted it.

> Cooperation trumps competition in the long run - even between superior races and lesser beings.

Again, not if there is a large difference in evolution between the races. If there is, cooperation gains you nothing. Humans gain nothing by working WITH horses. Humans gain everything by enslaving horses and telling them what to do.

Gods (or the one Christian God) gain nothing by working with humans. By definition, a god can do or create anything with just a single thought. Why would he need the help of the much more-limited abilities of humans?

Cooperation between beings only works if those beings are equal on the evolutionary scale, such as the U.S. and England cooperating to defeat Germany.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] chilone (17251) 7 years ago

Unfortunately, that leads to the dumbing down and weakening of the country and we end up with 50% of the people who think it is a good idea to elect Trump as our president. See the movie "Idiocracy" for more details.

You're absolutely right. Without the dumbing down, NO ONE would have voted for Hilary.

[–] kingramze 8 years ago

I think there's something missing from this interpretation. In "The Nines," Creation itself is just the thought of God. It's not necessarily a conscious decision to kill or destroy... he simply wakes up as if from a dream, and all the things he dreamed before are gone -- and new things now exist in his new dream.

The Nines remakes the world on a whim just by thinking it, not by actively willing it to change. One can't be held responsible for how their dreams work. It's subconscious.

So, yes... "God" can do whatever he wants with his creations because he MUST -- they are a projection of his will, and if his will changes, so do they. It's not an argument over ownership or one's right to subject their will on others... it simply IS. None of the other gods are going to condemn a 9 for creating or destroying anything the same way you don't punish yourself for having a different dream each night instead of the same exact dream in the exact same way. In our dreams, we create a kind of virtual reality... but, with The Nines, what they think and dream is manifested as our reality.

[–] Singingtothestardust 13 years ago

He was god in the sense that most religions hold, he created the universe and runs things behind the scenes. However unlike most religious teachings he is not the only one of his kind and he isn't the highest entity in existence. In terms of the wars she was saying that he is the principle that all the gods of every religion were made with. Humanity used him as a blue print, which isn't to say they (the gods of every religion) were very much like him, but if you followed their roots it would all trace back to him. As a result every religious person on the planet was worshipping him in a sense and making wars in his name weather he liked it or not.

Rebecca Black is the greatest philosopher of our time. Which seat should I take... BRILLIANT.

[–] WINKERLANd 13 years ago

I also watched this on Netflix not knowing what it was and loved it.

I just love film.

[–] akrisluvskev 13 years ago

He was God. Remeber the actress as she was entering the elevator refers to him as God then quickly says Gabriel as if she's made a mistake using the name God.

[–] mason25 13 years ago

He was god in the sense that he created it all, he also got "in" and played a few characters 'just to see what its like/for the hell of it'. Wouldn't you after watching for so long? not to mention... jesus was gods son... who better to live thru...

I don't believe that Dhalia called him god, I think she said 'oh god' because she ran into him.

[–] mikelock 12 years ago

I don't really believe the movie should be viewed from a religious viewpoint. Or at least one specific religion. All religions are basically the same and in the movie they would all be worshiping him anyways.

[–] welleerdeball 10 years ago

You're on drugs, man! I love it.

Oupps, gotta go. My lady's coming back from the toilet, after taking a dump. Have to do my duty...

[–] rainofwalrus 12 years ago

In the Old Testament, "god" is placeholder for an otherworldly voice without a body. It was the New Testament, and our later generations that have made things so unbelievably complicated.

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] neztra 12 years ago

I don't think this is a plot hole. I think this is illustrating the fact that the word "god" is a relative term. What is a god to humans could be just peer to other entities that are similar.

Bam said the lady.

[–] gabypanama 12 years ago

Interesting..I ended up with the same questionS and came here after watching it in Netflix. My last impression was that he as indeed, God. But that would put our western-modern concept of the perfect God in jeopardy since he had weekneses and needed human help to remember who he was. I just cant figure a God with such a flaw.
The fact that his name was Gabriel was maybe a hint that he was like an angel, like Archangel Gabriel...or precisely him?
Anyhow...I think who or what he exactly was is open to the viewers view on superior beings maybe..definetly a cool, though provoking film.

[–] dvayanu 12 years ago

>But that would put our western-modern concept of the perfect God in jeopardy >since he had weekneses and needed human help to remember who he was. I just cant >figure a God with such a flaw.

Dogma?

[–] AmFreak 12 years ago

Bible?

[–] neztra 12 years ago

He asks the question, Am I god? And is told no... God is a 10 and he is a 9. Why would that conversation exist if he was the end all be all God. I like the idea of them being angels, but then we are saying that angels, are in essencee, demi gods? Interesting thought process.

Bam said the lady.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] neztra 12 years ago

Bunny, that is exactly my take away on this.

Bam said the lady.

[–] belinda-short 10 years ago

I think you're losing the point if you refer to it in any kind of Christian dogma. The idea is he is a higher power and there is one higher than him. If that makes 'God' then that's okay to use as a term, but not an Angel. The idea is that he created worlds to play in suggests that he is just one of many and while there is a higher '10', it never suggests anything related to the bible, only that Humans react that way.

[–] MTulliver 11 years ago

" I just cant figure a God with such a flaw. "

Really? Have you read the bible? "He" says right there that he's "a jealous god". That's a heck of a flaw, don't you think?

[–] gabypanama 11 years ago

Im not saying that based on my beliefs, hey maybe theres no god as we think of him, or not at all? Who knows. Im saying that a god with such flaws is then not the "conventional" God that humanity think there is.

[–] Xzadrian 11 years ago

I think GGG is the/a Demiurge (from Platonism, Gnosticism, etc.), creator and Archon of the material world (or, in this case, several different material worlds). He and the other 9s may or may not be the creations of an unknowable Supreme Being.

[–] emvan 9 years ago

I scrolled through the answers to see if someone had suggested this. Because that's exactly what he is: a creature with enough power to create a universe, but lesser than God.

The conversation where he asks about the probability of a given digit being a 9, and is told 1 in 10, may suggest that this scale of beings indeed goes to 10, who would be God. A being that was a 0 would be nonexistent.

Demiurges feature prominently in the works of, arguably, the greatest writer of fantasy ever and the greatest writer of sf. In Tolkien, the world is created not by God, but by God's creations, the Ainur (Tolkien refers to their "demiurgic labors"). And Philip K. Dick used a demiurge in what might be his best short story, "Faith of our Fathers," and has one lurking in the deep background of his very Gnostic-influenced novel VALIS.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.