MovieChat Forums > Love (2012) Discussion > Interpretation of the ending? *spoilers...

Interpretation of the ending? *spoilers*


What do you think happened at the end? Did he die? Become omnipotent like the guy in 2001? I am not really sure what to make of the ending, I need to see it one more time

reply

I do think he died because he was clean cut when entering that building. And there couldn't have been any other explanation for why there was electricity and a file on all those people. He probably ran out of 02 and fell into a quiet coma and "passed on" to that familiar place.

"Collect calls to home to tell them that I realize that everyone who lives will someday die - and die alone"

reply

-One idea is that aliens created the computer/space cube that records every facet of our lives to document how we relate/interact with each other. The videos were done by abductees talking about human interaction, etc. At the end Earth is literally destroyed but Lee was on the space station so he is taken to a new world.

-Finally, Lee could be dead. He actually killed himself during the spacewalk part, and the rest of the film is him in a purgatory state. He discovers the left overs/documentation of the other people that have been there before him before he finally moves on to wherever we go in the end.

reply

-One idea is that aliens created the computer/space cube that records every facet of our lives to document how we relate/interact with each other. The videos were done by abductees talking about human interaction, etc. At the end Earth is literally destroyed but Lee was on the space station so he is taken to a new world.


It's close, the Aliens had been using the Giant ship to abduct people and learn about their personalities. These Aliens had created humanity to study this type of thing and the experiment came to an end with the Earth's destruction. After he died, they used their technology to transform into an energy being that will carry the secret of emotions back to their home planet.

"No man is just a number"

reply

My theory on the ending, however:
I go with the general theory that the Aliens in the giant building were abducting/observing this 'human species' which was known as being unique for having emotions, which is probably something that all other species in this universe did not have. Aliens discover humans, notice they have emotions, start abducting and observing(ie. the videos are abductees participating in the experiment). This experimentation led the aliens to think, "If contact is so important to these humans, what would happen if a human had no contact?", hence they discovered Lee alone, decided to do whatever to destroy the Earth/make sure he stayed alone. He decided to leave, and as he was leaving, they 'caught' him(the last sequence with him surrounded by space) and destroyed Earth as he was the last test in their experiment.

So basically Lee was the last piece to the experiment, once he was gonna kill himself/go back to Earth, the aliens had nothing left to experiment, so they did the final steps in destroying Earth(the beginnings of their plots to destroy Earth post-experiment began with whatever they did to make sure Lee was isolated) and abducted Lee, just like all the others they experimented on.

How this explains the sequence with him bearded and written all over, I don't know, I kinda act like that just didn't exist. Or maybe that whole thing with him and the scissors was done to imply that he just cut all his hair.

reply


I disagree with those saying it was aliens. There's a reason that the National Organization of Archival History (NOAH) is an acronym that would only have meaning to humans. That's a reference to Noah's Ark.

What was happening in the mid-21st century is that the world slipped into war again (just as it had 200 years before)... and the last transmissions he received were when the war claimed lives in Houston... What you're seeing throughout the film are the archival videos that humankind had recorded and sent into space. There's a probability that, having been up there for actually almost ten years (he first said 2036 or 2039 and then it was what, 2045 by the time the Ark found him), the world had been at war for some time and they constructed the ark to preserve whatever was left of our history... and ultimately send it back in time with the hope that it would serve as a warning to ourselves to not screw it all up.

It seems to be inspired by Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot, among other things...


Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

That's an excellent explanation! Thank you!

You want the wormhole knowledge?

reply

Okay interesting theory, but couldn't the "aliens" just have studied the meaning of Noah's ark?
And it doesn't make sense that technology have evolved so much over so little time. Look at the space station he is in, that is no way near the technology used in the other craft..

reply

It is meaningless, from the narrative perspective, for aliens to have been involved. There's absolutely no indication of aliens. Human connection is the entire point of the story... and the technology developed partly because the film is a paradox. Humans had been collecting artifacts since the civil war to put into the ark once they knew the ark would be built. To infer aliens makes the whole narrative meaningless and disconnected from what its ultimate thesis is.

To understand this better, consider that the director, Eubank, acknowledges Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan as one of the sources... the main point of Pale Blue Dot is that in this vast cosmos there is no one to save us from ourselves but ourselves. You cannot just inject the idea of aliens when there's absolutely no relevance to having aliens in the story. That's basically in scientific circles what is known as an argument from ignorance, i.e. "I don't understand how it could have happened therefore aliens/god/magical unicorns must have done it." No, it's abundantly clear that Lee is the last and mankind set about building this "scrapbook of sorts" to preserve something of ourselves, and the very opening shot hints at the ark going back in time as a warning to a culture in the midst of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. This isn't coincidence. It doesn't make sense to infer aliens while ignoring the narrative points that are staring you right in the face.

Sagan's point was that given the vastness of the cosmos, even if there is intelligent life elsewhere in it, we aren't likely to be able to travel those distances in any reasonable amount of time. This is where we make our stand, like it or not. I don't know why anyone invokes aliens when the much simpler, more plausible explanation (without bringing in extraneous entities not even so much as hinted at in the film), is that we brought about our own destruction and set about to teach ourselves something about human connection... something that isn't really meaningful to whatever other life might manifest in the universe.

Life elsewhere has no frame of reference for even comprehending, as much as we might, why "NOAH" is meaningful. It's there as a hint to you, the viewer, that this is the work of mankind, not some alien species observing us with no particular emotional attachment to our own cultural anthropology. That would totally defy the point the director is making from beginning to end of this film.


Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

[deleted]

Eleventh Dimension:

"But surely there is no real evidence to support a time-travel theory either."

Watch it again.

Pay attention to these details:

1. The timeline of the astronaut, which starts in 2036 until about 2045 based on his account and radio transmissions.

2. The first and last shots of the Civil War captain looking over the ridge. The second time, the camera reveals what he sees is the Ark... which was from the future.

3. the photograph of the ark and the Civil War captain in meteor crater in Winslow, Arizona, as seen in the book next to the computer in the Ark that Capt. Miller (the astronaut) docks with... in the future, not the past.

4. The way the rotation of the earth REVERSES suddenly in the very first shot of the entire film, abruptly after some kind of large disturbance occurs.

5. The dialogue between the civil war captain and the General, who explains that the reason he should go and see the artifact found at the crater (which we later learn to be the ark) is because he lost his entire platoon... as storytelling goes, this is a direct (and glaringly obvious) thematic parallel to the isolation the astronaut captain feels in the future.

Piece these and other details together, the time traveling archive of humankind is the best explanation for which there is any supporting evidence in the narrative at all.

"If this was just a human-built memory-machine time-travel story, where does our hero 'go' at the end?"

That piece is more open to interpretation, and I don't know whether he died or merged with whatever data repository they had formed. It does look like he takes a journey somewhere, a-la Dave Bowman, who merged with the intelligence of the monolith in 2001.

"What is it that he sees that causes such emotion to fill his face?"

In the comet-burst shot, you can see the faces of people in all the "droplets"... the various people they have interviewed in their project to archive records of humanity. He was alone for almost ten years, and now he is connecting with every human being that they have archives of... that would be a pretty cathartic moment for anyone.

"Surely, with this amazing (yet out-of-nowhere) technology, we humans could find an easier, more comfortable way for our hero to relate to these experiences than that which we ultimately give him - an abandonned building and a magic mushroom space-walk."

1. It wasn't out of nowhere. The timeline of the film is a paradox. The architectural styles and technology in the ark are from a collection of different eras. There's no telling how long the ark was originally under development, and no reason to believe that Miller's ignorance of it means it wasn't under development at some time in the past... including the ten years he was up in space, of which at least six he had no contact because the world had by that time plunged into war (note the explosions and lights going out on Earth).

But there's another piece to that... when you look at the images in the Ark Index book, which I recognize as being from different eras (real, recognizable historic photographs by the way, except for the ark and the civil war soldier, of course)... The implication, in my mind, is that once humans received the warning the ark represented, they set about trying to decode its technology, to understand it, and eventually to accept it and begin preparing and loading it with things from every era that it had been under study, only to be launched again when time caught up with the future to the point at which the ark would have to be sent into space. That's why you see a 1970's era Apple computer with a series of servers and a holographic projection room and architectural styles from various 20th century eras... all capturing and chronicling our history.

I can't prove conclusively that this last part is fact as far as the story is concerned, but what matters is that you as a viewer are provoked to think about the implications of discovering such an ark and then having almost 200 years from that point to comprehend the data and start working on things to add to the ark, as it is literally a time capsule of humanity.

But the original details I enumerated at the top of this post are all there and all in plain view if you're paying attention... and unmistakable signs that the ark had to travel through time. There's no better explanation given that aliens haven't factored in at all to the narrative, and there's no reason for aliens to be a part of the narrative that is purely and entirely about human connection as inspired by Pale Blue Dot (which the director acknowledged in an interview at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival), in which Sagan states that the possibility of life elsewhere is so remote that in the near term, ultimately, all we have is each other.

To invoke aliens as an explanation (one without merit) would be to miss the entire point of the film.

2. The abandoned building was probably living quarters for some of the last remaining survivors... or intended to be, or maybe just for historical purposes for whomever found the ark. The "mushroom spacewalk"... well, yeah there could be more "logical" ways but they wouldn't look as cool.

I think the film is steeped heavily enough in metaphor and voice over monologues that speak at right angles to the action that the metaphorical conclusion wasn't out of place. It's a bit less clinical than Contact and I'm ok with that because I doubt the film's consultants were anywhere near as technically versed as Sagan and Druyan who were consulting Bob Zemeckis when Contact was in development. It had the right parts of science and fiction without getting too nerdy or too artsy... or too visually ambitious like Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN which suffers from metaphorrhea.

I don't think the film is perfect, but I think with the resources they had they did a pretty stunning job... and it could even be, considering that the film has two primary time periods two hundred years apart... what if the final destination for Capt. Miller is actually somewhere in the distant future. His mushroom journey, as you put it, seems sort of like an Einstein-Rosen bridge, doesn't it? I don't need an exact answer.

What I find interesting and engaging about science and astronomy is that there's no end to questions to keep us occupied. I like movies that leave some things a little open to interpretation so we have something interesting to discuss. On these points I don't purport that I'm right or that there is a definite answer of any kind... but I do think my first five observations make it clear that all else being equal, the Ark did travel backward in time.



Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

[deleted]

Well, I can say too that was not an Alien ship.

In an interview William Eubank said: "What if some day we do wipe ourselves out without leaving anything behind? The ship can be a crazy time capsule containing all of these stories about being human. We’re leaving behind like a mark or grave site or something to say we existed."

source: http://www.anotherrainysaturday.com/2011/06/siff-interview-love-director-william-eubank/

So I think Avatar1974's theory is the truest by now.

reply

The five points I made have to do with both time travel and the theme of human interconnection, as opposed to alien interest. If I have to choose between time travel which is mandatory to explain how the ship Lee boards in 2045 ends up in a crater in Winslow, Arizona, during the Civil War, and the repeated themes of human interconnection, versus the total absence of any explanation of aliens... I think the one you're picking out of thin air, the superfluous entity, is aliens.

My first point was to illustrate that given the span of time he was up there, and the time period, it is entirely possible that humankind had a project in the works to build the time capsule, and the index for the archives is not called the "Alien Archive from Alpha Centauri" or some such thing. It is specifically called "National Organization of Archival History"... NOAH... as in Noah's Ark, a Biblical reference that holds no significance for any civilization on any other planet than ours.

Additionally the film doesn't actually begin in the past. So it's not a linear story... time starts at the beginning, the earth then reverses rotation, and suddenly we're in the 1860s. How much clearer does the director have to be? Then the film returns to the present, but also has a parallel story going on... again, how much clearer does the director have to be in establishing a nonlinear connection between these two isolated people? Then the film returns to the crater, to finish the shot and tell us what the Civil War captain saw... *immediately* after Capt. Miller finds the photo of the Civil War captain in front of a technology we didn't possess in the 1860's. Again, how much clearer does the director have to be?

Would it have helped if the director included some clunky, expositional dialogue, perhaps spoken by Clint Howard or Fred Thompson, spelled it out in plain english? Then it would be a far inferior film.

Again, the entire archival project was "as told by you"... "you" being humans... Why would aliens be necessary to fulfill the objective of the movie as a story about human interconnection? Just because you can't think of how else this story could have unfolded? It doesn't make sense, thematically, to spend an entire film talking about human interconnection and then imagine that that aliens drove the whole effort.

Yes, in a film like E.T. it's obvious that the importance of connection is facilitated by a benevolent alien who teaches us something about ourselves... Because E.T. is clearly a character in the film. Aliens are not in this film, but two completely unrelated time periods are, as well as several thematic elements that all point toward humans trying to warn humans about the impending demise which would be of no particular interest to an alien species because our petty differences have not been their struggle for the past 6000 years of civilization.

As another poster points out in this thread, the director himself noted that the film asks the question about what if we could warn ourselves.

How does that point to aliens as a more plausible explanation than time travel?

Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

Way late to this party...

I don't know if I liked this movie or not, but I've read many well-thought out explanations. Most seem pretty good, but the time-travel thing made sense on the surface but not if you dig any deeper. (I'll explain in a second) I'm not saying this isn't how the writer intended it to be, I'm just saying there's some big holes.

Ark is discovered during Civil War.
"Let's move this to a secure location, sir."
"You show me a damn horse and carriage that can do it, and we'll get it done. Otherwise, looks like we're going to have to wait 50+ years."

Scientists begin to look over the ark...
"Ooo, it's an archive of humans serving as a warning. We should get this thing fixed so we can launch it if we ever get close to wiping ourselves out. Then it'll go back in time and hopefully we can stop ourselves next time around! Um.. yes? The new guy with the lab coat? Johnson, is it? You have a question?"
"Call me crazy, sir, but if we have the ability to go back in time with the hopes of warning ourselves, wouldn't it be a much better idea to send a direct message or, hell, even a person back? That way we won't have to rely on IMDB posts to guess at the meaning of it all? I mean, if we're talking about something this important, wouldn't it be better to keep-it-simple-stupid?"
"You're fired. What is IMDB?"
[Sitcom laughter] [SCENE]

I love these types of movies, but this one just didn't seem that polished. Sure, the acting was good and the visuals were good. It seems the big defenders go back to the budget of 500k. Well, Primer (a favorite of mine) was done on 7k. Nowhere near as visual, but a great film either way. The budget is meaningless to the quality of the story. If I whipped out a camcorder and filmed me taking a piss, would I have an army of defenders saying "yes, but look! he did it for $5!"? I'm exaggerating, sure, but this film really seemed unpolished. They probably should've bounced this plot off of a few more people before starting filming.

reply

I never thought of it as time travel, I am going to have to watch the movie again with this idea in mind. I knew it wasn't aliens though, like you said it wouldn't fit the flow of the movie at all with random aliens showing up, I thought it was some sort of supernatural, angelic ending.

reply

I posted this in another thread, but I figured it applies to this one as well. Let me know what you think of this take on Love...

--------------------------------

First of all, this was an amazing film. I have studied film, worked in the film industry... I am also a huge fan of Carl Sagan, Angles and Airwaves, and other sci-fi art house films like, Moon, Contact, 2001, Solaris, and Melancolia. I watched LOVE last night, and have gone back and taken a second look at several scenes. Through this deep dive into the film I think I have a clear perspective of this story, however, like all art-house films your individual interpretation is the most important part.

THE GENERAL IDEA:
So as we all know this film is built around the construct that humankind existis in a rather lonely corner of the great cosmic dark. As stated so eloquently by Carl Sagan "The Earth is a very small stage in a very vast arena." The Pale Blue Dot, does in fact discuss the fragility of Earth and humanities destructive nature. This film goes further by identifying the one thing that make our lonely and insignificant existence bearable and beautiful: Human connection... or LOVE.

MY TAKE ON "LOVE":
I will keep this simple and present it in chronological order to help tie together the film.

Lee Briggs, the Civil War soldier discovers a SHIP (as written in the N.O.A.H. book "History" section at the end of the film) in 1864. The ship, or space craft is examined by human scientists through the 19th and 20th centuries (Also noted in the book through the pictures of scientists from different eras).

In 2039 Captain Lee Miller is an astronaut who finds himself stranded on the International Space Station without any communication with Earth nor any understanding of the world ending events that took place. In a addition to the silence we are shown an image of the dark side of earth as explosions seem to cover the majority of the land mass.

He remains alone for six years, goes crazy in the absence of human interaction and starts hearing voices and interacting with figments of his imagination.
During this time he finds the journal of Lee Briggs, the 1864 Union soldier. We do not know how it got there, it might even be an implant in his imagination to facilitate his own journey to find the archive. The book tells of Brigg's life as a soldier and his journey and discovery of something unknown and remarkable; however Briggs does not finish the book (or it was removed from the record). After some time Lee Miller attempts suicide, but does not go through with it. He then spends an unspecified amount of time back in the ISS.

Throughout the movie we see interviews of different people describing their interpretation of Love and human connection. Obviously these clips are from the archival record that is stored in the SHIP as we will see later.

Suddenly, the computer kicks on and displays that it has received docking orders. Lee looks out the window and see's something. He then begins to prepare himself by cutting his hair. We are shown an image of an enormous space craft that resembles the craft that Lee Briggs discovered in 1864 (as seen in the NOAH book pictures at the end) I believe that this craft crash landed on earth likely long before it's discovery. Through the research and study by the scientists, the craft was realized to be a device to record human history. One might be inclined to think that living aliens assisted in this effort, however, there is no evidence in the film that living aliens were involved... but the ship itself might be capable of instruction, or it quite possibly crash landed with the intent of capturing a record of humanity. Some people on this thread say that it couldn't have been Aliens due to the NOAHs Ark reference. I believe that the craft is absolutely alien for two reasons... One, it is huge and obviously of unearthly technology. Two, later in the film the "voice" that he hears tells Lee that they were "Listening" and that they "Can't wait to meet him." It was likely the scientists who created an organization that they dubbed NOAH, for the obvious human relevance. Either way, I believe that the craft took off from Earth a few years after the "end-of -the-world" took place and shortly after, discovered Lee alone and alive on the ISS.

Lee opens the airlock and begins to crawl through it to an unknown destination.... Here is where the movie gets surreal and interpretation is wide open. I believe that he boards the alien space craft. But the inside of the craft does not look Alien. Why?.. The ship is "intelligent," (either piloted by advanced AI or some form of Alien consciousness) and it simulated a "familiar" world for Lee to enter as to not freak him out. The "voice" later remarks that they are "sorry for the projection" but it was the only way they could reach him. This would infer that the entire experience from the docking, to the end of the film is all played out within Lee's mind.

Through the corridors Lee continues on, eventually stumbling on the Archive room. A TV is plays the interview that he gave on a late night talk show prior to his launch. I believe that this is intended to show that the intelligent "whatever" is expecting him. He then notices the book. The book is titled: "A Love Story - A collection of Musings, Stories and Memoirs of the Human Condition, " by NOAH - the National Organization of Archival History, As Told By You. The book has two sections according to the TOC: History pg.3 and Index pg. 12. Obviously the book is mostly an Index of names. It is during this history that we learn about the discovery of the ship at Meteor Crater in 1864 and the following scientific studies.

Lee then finds his name in the Index with a number code (these codes are also seen in the archival footage of the interviews in the bottom corner). When Lee inputs his number code into the computer the reality disappears, or switches, and we find Lee in a hotel room. A voice comes through, as if he is hearing it in his head. This is what it says:

"How you doing Lee?.. Sorry about this projection, but it is the only way we should reach you. Can't tell you how relieved we are to have you here. Now... before we get ahead of our selves, we have to tell you something. You are the last one. It's all gone. We understand how you might feel. Connection is perhaps the most cherished thing any being can have. That's the thing, that's how we've been listening. The place you see here is a scrap book of sorts. A collection of memories and momentos of mankind's brief existence." "It's a good thing we found you, we look forward to meeting you Lee"

When Lee opens the door again the reality changes. We see Lee in his helmet going through a worm hole of some-sort. Possibly a reference to the film Contact which was written by Carl Sagan in which an astronaut travels great distances through space, not in body but in consciousness. Here, I take this as the moment Lee's consciousness is downloaded into the archive. Lee arrives in a darkened room which reveals itself as a visualization of the Universe. As he explores this environment a ball of fire crashes into him. As it envelopes him we see that the ball of fire is made up of little spheres, each encapsulating the memories, stories and possibly consciousness of individual people. In this moment Lee Miller smiles; he has come back home... and will no longer be alone for eternity. There is no certainty as to the involvement of his physical body, but it is not important because the movie makes the claim that all we are are our memories, connections and relationships.

A remaining questions: Who is controlling the ship? I postulate that 1: it could be controlled on it's own as some sort of pre-programmed ARK returning it's archive of humanity back to some undisclosed forum of other Universal species. 2: it is controlled by some form of alien consciousness that is there in mind but not body. or 3: it is controlled by the collective human consciousness of all the people archived. I like all these possibilities, but I do believe that the evidence shows that the ship is Alien in origin. It was not created by man, but it's efforts were likely assisted by man.

One thing that might fill in some blanks is the final line of the movie. A female computer voice says: "Tonight has been a wonderful experiment of human contact. A symbiotic relationship between man and machine and YOU. The human brain is capable of millions of connections. Each one is a memory, an event. Tonight you will be remembered not by one but by thousands of these relationshops..." It goes on ending with the tag line that you have collectively experienced LOVE. I believe that this dialog is intended to be addressed to the moviegoer audience, but it is a cue of the ideas and directive of the film.

The story is a success in depicting the importance of human connection. It is also visually striking, and an achievement of film making as it had an estimated 500K budget... very small considering the production value and VFX work involved. I believe that with a second and third watch any intelligent viewer will take away a sense of inspiration, and appreciation for the value of humanities connectedness. I hope you enjoyed my summary. Again, this is my interpretation, you are welcome you your own. If nothing else, the quotes that I have added should help guide your own theories.

reply

"One, it is huge and obviously of unearthly technology."

Mainframes, televisions and Apple computers, as well as incandescent lighting and ornate staircases are unearthly technology?



Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

As I mentioned, it was all part of the "projection" that the alien, or space craft stated they were using to "reach" him.

As per the line that is spoken to him when he is sitting in the hotel room after he boards the ship.

reply

How does that line indicate an alien projection rather than a human from the past projecting to another human?

All the recordings made... They make sense as messages to other human beings. We have a connection, a common thread. But to subscribe to the alien idea requires a leap of logic in believing that aliens have any investment in our emotional underpinnings, more so than we do. The entire movie is about human connection with each other. So why do aliens figure into this for any other reason than, "I can't conceive of how humans could have done this."

Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

A human doesn't need to "project" to another human. Seems to be just copying the 2001 ending, poorly

reply

We do need to "project" to each other. We do it via cinema.

The end says, "Good evening. Tonight has been a wonderful experiment of human contact: a symbiotic relationship between man and machine...and you. The human brain is capable of millions of connections: each one is a memory; an event. Tonight shall be remembered, not by one, but by thousands of these relationships. As you leave here tonight, close your eyes and travel back to here, to now, and always remember that this was one moment...you were NOT alone, and you felt something that thousands of others have felt. And it was Love."

The experiment is cinema, storytelling, and YOU. We project one to another to remember; to tell our story. It's an allegory. You are not alone.

BTW, as the end rolled I imagined seeing it in a theater, and can't help but imagine myself having great conversations with others who saw it with me. About life, the meaning of life, communication, memories...and love. Sadly I saw it on Netflix...alone. :) But now I'm here, with you, experiencing this film together--and I am not alone.

reply

"Also, Sagan was quite happy to countenance the notion of intelligent other-worldly beings in works such as 2001 and Contact, so perhaps this film represents more than just a few ideas from Pale Blue Dot. "

Ah but it was Sagan in Pale Blue Dot who specifically said that there will be no one to save us from ourselves in the near term (geological time spans, not dozens but millions of years)... Except ourselves. In the end, Sagan kept pointing out, all we have is each other.

Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

...except in the film itself there is dialog from the "ark" representative apologizing for the "projection" method of communicating with Lee and that dailog also talks about the short history of humanity as from the perspective of an outsider observing and documenting in a detached way, not from an insider perspective all sad lamenting the loss of our shared species.


- - -

Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.

reply

I agree. The dialog is written with so many clues that you must choose to ignore in order to believe it isn't aliens.

The alien says, "I can't tell you how relieved we are to have you here."
If the message is pre-recorded, it makes no sense for the speaker to be relieved about something that has not happened yet. And if they knew he would be there because time travel, then there is nothing to be relieved about since his presence was pre-ordained.

But, then the alien says "Connection is perhaps the most cherished thing any being can have." Not "human being" just "being" making a very strong implication that there are more than just humans involved.

Then the next line is "That's why we have been listening." If they have been listening, how can the projection be just a recording? You have to be present to listen, ergo someone non-human has been listening and is now communicating.

reply

[deleted]

What was happening in the mid-21st century is that the world slipped into war again (just as it had 200 years before)... and the last transmissions he received were when the war claimed lives in Houston...


Neither the astronaut or Houston command were concerned about war as the movie opened, so I guess we're supposed to assume the war came unexpectedly, and we need to take this lesson to heart. Fine, but then it doesn't make sense that in the decade the guy is stuck on the ISS some Earth country is able to build and launch the Ark. After a devastating nuclear war?

And wouldn't it make more sense for the screen writers to use a war more on point, like WWII or some phase of the Cold War, because these sorts of global disasters are what might actually lead the world to nuclear total war?

I don't want to rehash another post I just made about the positive impacts of the American Civil War, but if it is the case that the time-traveling Ark was meant to change history, it would be a dick move to try to prevent emancipation.

I mean, if you're going to build crazy-advanced technology that can intervene at a crucial point in history, wouldn't you pick the Second Punic War or Vietnam?

__ __ __
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"--Pres. Merkin Muffley

reply

I enjoyed the film and realize the point that it was trying to make; but the "ark" just had me baffled.

Somehow some mysterious, unexplained object is located during a time of heavy conflict on Earth during the 19th century and then rediscovered in orbit communicating with supposedly the last known human alive and....

The ark's origin was most likely alien; but was just way too vague to make any sense of it (other than being an archive of humanity's existence.)

--------
The movie has a plot hole?!?
EVERY FRIGGIN' MOVIE HAS A FRIGGIN' PLOT HOLE!!!!!

reply

I believe he died.



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

It seems that most of you cannot understand the ending. He definitely didn't die or kill himself cause if you recall the last thing he said on the space station while he was about to cut his hair was "It's time to go" while nodding his head. Soon after that, he get's on the ship or whatever it is which earlier in the movie the soldier called "the grandest design". If you also recall the place is a scrapbook of sorts filled with memories and mementos of mankind's brief existence. Everything he saw on the ship was nothing more than projections and then opened the book that said A Love Story: A collection of musings,stories,and memories of the human condition. Which then said compiled by N.O.A.H.-National Organization of Archival History: As told by you. In the end of movie, it's clearly stated that he goes through a wormhole and meets God. Some of you people need to get with the program here, haha!


-The Orchidales

reply

[deleted]

What does being an Athiest have to do with this film?

I don't believe in God either, but what happened in the film happened. I can suspend my personal disbeliefs long enough to watch a SciFi film or any film with religious overtones for that matter. Not sure why a lot of Athiests can't?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

This movie is the worst movie ever created. I hope this director dies in a fire. The synopsis is so misleading it's hilarious. The story is so haphazardly thrown together and the lapses in time and characters are akin to dog feces being thrown haphazardly on a white wall. This is the worst representation of film making ever. Do not watch this meconium laced filth ball. That is all. True Reviewer P.S. This movie sucks balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

8 years later and my third viewing, its still an incredibly thought provoking movie.

reply