Talk:The Quiet Earth (film)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  My god, what happens at the end????? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to "MY God..." 

message: 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)
thread_title: Minor observations

message: I removed .  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)
thread_title:  One-man films 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last Man on Earth