Explain the Ending (**Spoilers-obviously **) - The Objective (2008) Discussion

[–] aeo 14 years ago

"When Oban touched Keynes forehead, it seemed to be some sort of knowledge transformation. Is that the sense others got?"

Yes. Sort of reminded me of the last Indiana Jones movie where the aliens gave knowledge to the scientist as a thanks for saving them.

"Why would he want to share information with just this one guy - a CIA operative at that, who would just exploit any information received. Why not just kill him, like the others?"

I'm assuming that the aliens did not kill him because he did not fire upon them and also he was using his machine to record the aliens. I think both those factors may have persuaded them to impart knowledge to him, regardless of whether he was CIA or not because let's face it, the aliens are so far advanced that I don't think that really mattered.

"Then, what's going on back in the lab when he's levitating off the table while being observed? "

I'm assuming that the vast amount of knowledge imparted to the CIA agent somehow changed his brain and gave him untapped abilities. Albeit the amount of knowledge given to the CIA agent seemed like he was suffering from sensory overload since his face look like was in a catatonic state. It is a fact that human beings only use a small portion of their brains in any given day, if not their entire life.

reply

[–] MemeHermetic 14 years ago

That's a myth aeo. We use our entire brain. Everyday.

reply

[–] allcladrad 14 years ago

I got the impression that the information the agent had was erased. Which was reinforced, in my mind, by the hospital shot. The aliens had been hanging around since Alexander and until recent technology, had gone pretty much undiscovered, another factor.

I enjoyed the movie and I thought I was following the plot fairly well, but lost that feeling in the ending sequences. It just didn't fit together as well as the rest of the script.

reply

[–] folkpoet80 13 years ago

Get your facts checked I must say. Your statement is a complete western myth.

reply

[–] Billy_Crash 13 years ago

Agreed. We just use different segments are different times for different things. We don't use it all at once.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBelette 12 years ago

"We use our entire brain. Everyday."

I know people who sure don't.

reply

[–] wraithguardomega 14 years ago

People use all of their brains. Just not at the same time. Different parts have different functions, there is no mysterious parts of the brain that does nothing and that might one day become usable. If there was we could artificialy stimulate it to find out what it does.

reply

[–] dontadow 14 years ago

The idea that we use only 10 percent of our brain is true, in that, we only use 10 percent of our potential power of our brain. Those who display extraordinary abilities like photo memorization and limited pyschic abilities are shown to use their brains differntly than others, in that they may be using as much as 40 or 50 percent of its potential. Ther eare some ancient cultures that believed that if we fully used our brains, we could achieve self flight.

reply

[–] Ashles 14 years ago

Nope, it is simply untrue that we only use 10 per cent of our brain.
Honestly look it up. I's a myth. Like psychic abilities.

reply

[–] Phroggy 13 years ago

From what I read, parts of the brain are dormant and can take over. People with brain injuries can have some other part of the brain host the function stocked in the lost parts.
I'm not saying it's THE TRUTH, I remember reading it in a scientific magazine ! But the fact that if we could use all our brain, we'd be supermen, blah blah blah, is a load of bollocks indeedy ! ;)

reply

[–] DomsDad 12 years ago

I tell my students who believe the silly we use 10% of our brains myth (which originated from a misinterpretation in a pop psych magazine from an actual scholarly article) the following: If you are using only 10% of your brain, go ahead and have the other 90% removed and see how that works out.

reply

[–] joshdestardi 10 years ago

...I think there is a middle-ground between people arguing for scientific evidence that it's not true that we only use 10% of our brain and those say we DON'T use more than 10% of our brain.

Clearly, savants and other folks with different amazing skills for whatever reason are either accessing parts of their brain that the rest of us do not on a daily basis or forming greater numbers of nerve pathways, whatever...

The point being that if SOME people can be genius at doing certain things, then we all should have the capability in a dormant sense. The fact that *ANY* humans are able to process numbers, memorize entire books and occurrences, in superhuman fashion should tell you all that we are not using our brains at full capabilities.

reply

[–] MxSChizo 13 years ago

Some people in fact do use 100% of their brains simultaniously. When they're going through a severe epileptic seizure.
Each part has a different function, switching every component on at the same time results in a massive short circuit, no spoon bending involved.

reply

[–] ksperrye 10 years ago

Ah...THANK YOU. Finally, someone with knowledge and sensibility!

reply

[–] jonschaper 14 years ago

The way I saw it, the entire film is about experiencing something that is truly alien. Maybe the point of the ending is the fact that the incidences the CIA operative lived through could never possibly be understood or explained from a human perspective. The flashes at the end, his paralysis, etc, likely reflect his inability to process the events. What are the aliens' motives or motivations? Why are they operating in just that particular area? I suppose we do not even get to see what happened to him at the end clearly because not even he could understand what happened to him within the limitations of human senses and psychology. Imagine a blind person who's seen flashes of colour trying to explain them to other blind people, or a paramecium trying to explain the psychology and motivations behind sexual fetishes (let alone understand what sex is). Such ideas have been explored in literature (for example the few that immediately jump to my mind are various Alan Nourse short stories like "High Threshold", or Samuel Delany's "Star Pit"). The difference between these stories and the movie, unfortunately, is that the stories had more satisfying endings because they had as much (or more) to say about humans as they did about the impossibility of understanding something truly alien. I still thought the film had some good ideas, but was disappointed by the lack of any satisfying resolution. The only other thing I would note is that most of the humans who were killed (well, that's actually an assumption) were shooting at the aliens or otherwise acting hostile.

reply

[–] Caractacus23 14 years ago

I'm amused by the several references to "aliens." There are no extra-terrestrial beings in this film. That technology was ancient Earth, not ET. The technology itself was in the hands of humans who'd learned to use it (probably some Hindu wise men from nearby India).

Gamera is really neat! He is made from turtle meat! We've been eating Gamera!

reply

[–] jonschaper 14 years ago

There was nothing in the film to indicate your theory. And it is a far more speculative position to take than saying they were extraterrestrial or extradimensional because then you need to explain 1) how this technology was developed so secretly that it didn't spread (which goes against all history about the spread of information), 2) why nobody else over the millennia have been able to develop this technology having the same access to resources and the same brain structure -- what would make this one culture so unique, 3) what are they using this technology for (using human psychology as the backdrop) -- per your theory, they developed this technology for the sole purpose of confusing soldiers, 4) what resources the ancients used to develop this technology (without electricity, smelters, etc), 5) why these wise Hindus wouldn't use their technology for the good of the rest of the world, 6) why would they kill and trap other humans instead of remaining hidden or disarming them if they are such wise Hindus, etc, etc.

reply

[–] tracor-892-551976 13 years ago

Aliens or Time Forgotten Worlds of our ancestors, who are you to question what one believes? How much of our planet has actually been seen and discovered? There are many myths of ancient people. I am not saying this is ancient man or alien, it's a movie and it's whatever the writer believes it to be. But here is one interesting thing http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

reply

[–] joshdestardi 10 years ago

...Oh please. The inclusion of a 'known artifact' linked to ancient aliens in all of the silly conspiracy theories (the airplane shaped artifact) clearly indicates there are aliens in this film.

reply

[–] tracor-892-551976 13 years ago

Aliens or Time Forgotten Worlds of our ancestors, who are you to question what one believes? How much of our planet has actually been seen and discovered? There are many myths of ancient people. I am not saying this is ancient man or alien, it's a movie and it's whatever the writer believes it to be. But here is one interesting thing http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

reply

[–] Riddles_At_U 10 years ago

The artifact is a spark plug.. Whats interesting about it? lol

reply

[–] gmoceanside 14 years ago

Well this movie was based on UFOs...like it or not....but that was the subject of the movie.
The CIA knew of ufo abductions in that area which was explained in the movie when they started telling stories about how thousands of men dissapeared from the desert. which were probably rescued..
The main guy was Mohammud....yes that is true...the prophet mohammud which the quran tells stories about flying things in the skies and how he went up to heaven by the hand of god...
also the biggest indication that this was a UFO movie was when the CIA agent told the chieft that what he saw on his thermal cam were "Divanas" which mean flying vehicles. In ancient indian and hindu texts....there are many stories about how the people observed hundreds of flying vehicles in the sky waging war against eachother with magical beauty and elegance to their movements....I know this sort of stuff cuz i was into the whole ufo thing a few years back.
maybe muhammud got this technology in his time and escaped earth and came back....i don't know how that works......but the main point of the movie was to make obvious the UFO presence in afhganistan which has many cool stories of lights zip zapping and abducting people.

reply

[–] nbeall 14 years ago

Close... They're called "vimanas" but the idea did originate in ancient Hindu religion. They are essentially the chariots of the gods. Wikipedia has a detailed article about it. I think that says much about the "meaning" of the movie too. The man who Keynes is looking for is a shaman. He's the closest to the religious, spiritual nature of the surroundings. You are correct about Mohammed; even the Nation Of Islam talks about "flying wheels" descending from heaven. I personally don't think the vemanas are meant as "alien" per se just because they are UFOs. I think it was somekind of physical representation of a spiritual world. Almost like cross-dimensional vehicles though not. But alot of interpretations of one can lead to the other. What is a god if not a highly-intelligent and powerful alien? What is a highly-advanced alien if not essentially a god? I too enjoyed the movie although it does have some obvious flaws. I too used to be a UFO/paranormal dork. Actually, scratch the "used to be" part.

reply

[–] tedpittman09 14 years ago

The touch on the forehead was an attempt for a highier intelligence to answer the curiosity of an inferior being (who's mind couldn't take it).

The floating above the table was a side effect of the energy that had been transferred. Perhaps, more of the CIA agents got exactly the same treatment.

When dealing with highier intelligence, it should not be expected that the lower intelligence (us) would understand everything.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dmmallyams 13 years ago

We do use only a minimal portion of the brain.To illustrate let us think of the mental processing involved in flying a fighter plane.The visual processing,reflex manouevres,response to another plane in the sky in a dogfight are very complex.This ability was unused till few decades back when fighter planes were invented. But the ability and the brain always existed ,right? You can imagine many such uses yourself.Wonder what else we will be capable of in the future with the same brain.Nature is smart!

reply

[–] mic1184 13 years ago

dmmallyams, I don't want to get caught up in a fight as I don't know anything about the physiology of the human brain having no medical/biological/psychologic professional background.

But as an engineer I am used to enveil wrong logics. you're indicating that the ability to learn and adapt to new situations means that we're only using our brains minimally.

Technically we could be "using our brains at 99% efficiency" and would still be able to learn an infinite amount of new things.

Problem of the whole argumentation is that it's not well defined what "using a brain efficiently/to an amount of x" means.

- Volume of the brain that shows an elevated level of electrical activity when solving some kind of task?
- Number of synapses or number of synapse circuits?
- Any other factor that has not yet known?

Probably it's a mix of all three. It's all speculation.

reply

[–] MxSChizo 13 years ago

The brain doesn't contain hidden instruction manuals for future technologies. We just adapt to use the same analytical sense for varying tasks. Upgrading our fighter planes doesn't unlock some sort of genetically hidden knowledge.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] natebouchard 10 years ago

This is my vibe.

As has been explained around these boards already, the Virmanas and Djinn are drawn on heavily for inspiration of these entities (in fact, the lore is held to so strictly, it's basically guaranteed that these are what the supernatural phenomena were). Djinn are normally extremely secretive though. Thus it required a man willing to die to discover their secrets, who observed rather than fought the beings, to be imparted their knowledge. It was definitely a test.

What is far more interesting is that this lore is combined with an "ancient aliens" idea as well. However, if they are aliens or interdimensional beings, why bother to look like medieval Muslim soldiers? To me that says that these beings are more likely humans who have become incorporeal through sorcery or some form of enlightenment. Perhaps that's the wrong word, since these are not enlightened beings since they are certainly not non-violent. Since the lore involved is all Muslim, I suspect that these are men who have submitted to God or some godly alien force (Islam means "submission" for those who don't know). In this way, Keynes "submits" as well when he cries out at the oasis and he loses hope, mocked by the flares.

As far as his floating at the end, Keynes asks at one point in the movie "Am I the messenger?" After the events of the film, his wife is sent a journal written in code, and he levitates in a lab. Moreover, his wife says he went out into the desert to "Find Mohammad", God's messenger. Clearly, he is acting as a message carrier and the Djinn (demons in Muslim lore but perhaps just secretive servants of God in this rendition) are willing to become known to the outside world now.

As for their purpose in revealing themselves, we have only the final line "They will save us all" to go on. But perhaps Keynes is referring to a spiritual sort of saving (ie. submission). For those who got their panties all in the twist about the Muslim call to prayer being used over and over in this film, by this point it should be obvious: the Virmanas were demanding submission, then killing the soldiers who fought them instead. The movie wouldn't be ENTIRELY about Islam, nor end with the final line praising salvation through this terrifying force, if it was an anti-Islamic movie.

reply