Talk:The Book of Eli/Archive 3

Eli's blindness
Eli has his sight at the onset of our journey with him.... Then. Think about it.... Eli begins to go blind after the shoot-out at the homestead of the cannabilistic couple. There he is gut-shot wounded and lightning flashes. It is from that point forward he is slowly trudging westward without his glasses... glasses that protect his eyes from the radiation / rays / glare / UV / elements / solarflares / whatever of the apocalyptic environment. He has Solara to guide - drive - accompany him to the western destination..., always she has her aviator glasses in place. Always, others are wearing their glasses, their goggles, their eye protection of some type. However Eli does not wear his glasses and no longer is he seen wearing the dark glasses. The blindness (darkness) comes as the enlightenment (Bible) emerges. OOAKA (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)OOAKA

Your opinion, not relevant. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:20, 22 January


 * Not relevant? It poses a better argument than anything else about his blindness.  Quiet honestly he hardly showed any signs of being blind in the beginning.  He was a little too good at the things he did to be completely blind throughout the movie.  It may be an opinion, but there is very little GOOD argument against it.Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The movie's twist doesn't make much sense as a twist if he wasn't blind the whole time, nor does the fact that he was carrying a Braille Bible. Hints were dropped throughout, like Eli's noting of his excellent sense of smell right before the ambush. Yes, his physical feats were a little far-fetched, but considering that he was apparently anointed by God, and that it's a movie, it's acceptable. This would be a fun theory for the WMG page on TvTropes, but the official interpretation of the movie is clearly supposed to be that he was blind the whole time. 153.42.170.64 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just got back from seeing the movie (again!!!), thing is, he tends to look people straight in the eye. This is the exact opposite of what Claudia (also blind) does, she often stares into space.  Also Eli had a name tag from Kmart, and why would he work at a store if he was blind?  Many of his mannerisms are closer to be partially blind, until after he gets shot, where he starts to act more like a fully blind person.Halofanatic333 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've watched it many times, I feel he is blind. In the bar scene you see him correct his eyes; because he entered into a blind stare. Animals do not show their weakness nor pain. This is to avoid being a target of easy prey for predators. In the world scenario of Book of Eli, the same would be true. The woman that was blind was bound to servitude and used as leverage against her daughter. If Eli were to reveal his blindness, he would then fall victim as the "predators" would know how to defeat him; therefore he would look into the direction of the sounds. Though, if you watch in a fight scene, he would generally look straight on. Until the twist is revealed, the observer would only think he was an extremely talented fighter. I think it's great how they made sure that each sound was emphasized to as to A. lead a hint and/or B. as a sign when returning to watch the movie again. Area's of obvious blindness: missing the car door when going to open, having to feel down the legs of the dead driver in search of boots, sliding the contents of the cabinets listening for food, bumping into the table, keen sense of smell, feeling down the hanging man for boots, having to smell the black water to tell if it were bad, fighting while looking straight, not letting the girl see the Bible (which would reveal to her his blindness), the director hint when she asked him to teach her to read, correcting himself from a stare at the bar. I'm sure there are other, that just what I've noticed right off. User:Guest 12 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.251.125 (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Most film reviewers leave out spoilers, but Sight & Sound doesn't, so from the March 2010 issue, page 52 the synopsis by Henry K Miller (bare in mind they give the exact length of films 10,577ft + 10 frames, so they clearly know the film), penultimate sentence "Eli, revealed to have long been blind, dies." That the film makers were not consistent (mainly to throw the audience off the scent) is no proof that he was not blind throughout, just that films are not perfect. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you obviously didn't watch the movie, Darrenhusted, the entire plot was around the fact that "God" guided his journey. As long as he stuck to the road, as he said. He would be safe from the world. Jstarsupreme (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only have I seen the film, I have a copy of the script. He never says why he is blind and the cause of the apocalypse is never given, only hinted. As it stands I have no idea what you are objecting to, at this point the plot summary has been honed down the the basics and edited by enough people to ensure there are no errors or original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Eli did say that the sky tore open (like a hole in the atmosphere), and it burned up the land. The people who went underground/into hiding  survived.  Halofanatic333 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The description is vague enough that the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions, and he never states that he saw what happened, he simply sums up the events. And FYI a braille bible would be several volumes (up to 20) and not one book. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That description is the very definition of "implying while not stating." I concur with Darren, these elements are best left as currently described.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the authors put that part in as their "believable miracle". There are no miracles during the rest of the movie, but if you want a miracle then a blind guy effectively shooting and using a bow could easily be viewed as miraculous.

That said, Eli believing god guided his journey does not make it true, especially when the writers made his blindness take other tolls. Eli sticks to the road because he needs direction when the sun is directly overhead. He starts and ends each day going the right direction because the sun tells him east and west, but he frequently get's lost during midday. You just don't require 30 years to walk across the U.S. unless your lost. We see him walking over an overpass that requires backtracking after he find the bridge is out. He only shoots people after they shoot at him. He shoots the cat after it made sounds. etc.

You're quite clearly allowed to take Eli's blindness as either miracle or kung-fu super human reflexes and hearing. The writers clearly let you have it either way. Why shouldn't they make everyone happy? 77.2.132.144 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case, Eli's blindness definitely does not go beyond the powers kung-fu movies routinely grant masters without any divine intervention, so while miraculous you're not expected to believe anything you don't already believe when you walk into a movie theater. If anything, I'm please they took such pains making those powers believable using the incidents I mentioned above.  :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.132.144 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weird - if he couldnt see he wouldn't have been able to see the island at the end - you are just making it up - it's just braille and he can read braille - just like I managed to read some words out of my fathers braille books, my father was blind, I have 20/20 vision and anyone with sensitive fingers can read braille blind or not
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, he didn't necessarily see the Island, at least not confirmably. Solara was rowing the boat, and there's no sign of him acknowledging the island until someone shouted "that's far enough!". Which would give him a clue both to look up, and in that particular direction. Also, while Eli is convinced that the original "voice" he heard was that of God, it could also just as easily have been a nearby priest telling him where one of his Bibles was hidden - making him blind or partially blind actually allows the filmmakers a non-supernatural out so that to the careful observer the movie doesn't necesssarily rely 100% on God existing (I like a lot of the small touches they did to support this interpretation as a possibility, personally, such as the bullets that didn't kill him having actually hit his pack, meaning they could have been blocked by something in it, as well as, interestingly, the "Alcatraz Press" printing of the KJV being set literally between copies of the Torah and the Quran, meaning that as a film, you don't necessarily have to interpret it as a solely "Christian" film, despite the obvious pro-faith message).


 * I should note, I am able to buy the theory that he was only "partially" blind initially, since even being mostly-blind (especially if it's a degenerative condition) explains why he has to poke around the way he does/his keen other senses, while still explaining how he could easily appear to look people in the eye - and knowing you have that kind of condition, wouldn't you teach yourself Braille? That said, even a totally blind person could probably have been hired at Kmart; it's blatantly clear that the story is set in what used to be America (he WALKS to California, after all), and in the US, many times companies get tax incentives for hiring "handicapped" people, including the deaf and the blind. And considering how good he was at interacting with people, handling objects, etc., he was pretty damn functional. Don't assume that just because someone is blind, that they don't know how to make up for it most of the way with their other sentences; just having one sense gone doesn't mean you can't be clever with your other ones, as deaf people are for instance, with using floor stomps or waving a hand in front of a light source to attract attention from people who aren't looking at them.


 * Also, one last note - despite a criticism above that the KJV in Braille should be "20 volumes", it really shouldn't be much larger than a Large Print edition, because IIRC, Braille actually directly equates directly with the alphabet and arabic numerals. (Granted, the book should still have been thicker given how long the KJV is, but still, it need not be "20 volumes", that's just a total hyperbole). 68.202.85.105 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is wrong, as it would only have taken a second to Google and find out, the Braille Bible does indeed require multiple volumes. Braille characters have to be of a certain size to be readable.121.73.221.187 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

convenience break
There's nothing in this movie to suggest Eli was blind. Even the milky eyes aren't a concrete indication of blindness. I know because my uncle's right eye looks exactly like that, yet he can see through it clear as day (proven by the fact that he has a drivers' license and a pilots' license). As said previously, Eli the exact opposite of Claudia who is very clearly blind. But if he was supposed to be, then quite frankly Washington did a **** job portraying it. About Eli "beginning to go blind" after the shoot-out at the cannibal couple's house, you do realize he was shot in the stomach and dying, right? And leaving without his glasses? Again, shot in the stomach and dying. The glasses could also have been broken during the firefight, such as when Carnegie's man blew half the house up with a rocket-propelled grenade. Spartan198 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the summary in March's Sight & Sound called the twist and the script itself on page 110 says he's blind and the zoom on his eyes while Mila Kunis looks shocked give it away, though for the entire film they hide it, because it's plot twist, and if he bumbled around for an hour that may have given it away. That the film has inconsistencies does not mean that he is sighted. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a bunch of evidence suggesting that he is blind, but there is no proof. He doesn't ever say "Yo, I'm blind" or "I forgot to tell you, I can't see for ****". The script is an unreliable resource, and Sight & Sound uses their own interpretation and opinion on the matter. So neither can be used as proof, mate. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * I have edited the text to say "to show that he might be blind."
 * Here are the interviews which back that up...
 * Washington: We went through a million gazillion glasses. I went to these Harley stores and were buying goggles. We came up with the sun rules because at first he was one of the only ones wearing glasses. I said that’s not going to work, so we came up with the sun rules that too much sun will burn your eyes so everybody’s got to wear them so we could take the smell off of him, why is he walking around inside and outside with these glasses? Because I never answered the question whether he’s blind or not. I don't think it’s important. There’s different parties were kind of hung up. “Well, we need to show that he…” No we don’t. Maybe God gave him a Braille bible and said, “Learn it.”
 * Washington: In [Eli's] 30 years of walking, you run into people. I make light of it, but that's almost the way I looked at it. ... There's this whole issue, without giving it away, is he blind, is he not. ... If you look at the movie, sometimes I actually bumped into stuff -- and they used it. But it was actually an accident or it was God's will. In a couple of scenes, I bumped and tripped over stuff and they kept it in there. I'm sure there will be people [who say], "Oh, there's the clue. ... I told you he was [blind] because he bumped into that." So maybe he can [see], maybe he can't? Maybe he can see a little bit? Maybe his eyes are clouded? I don't know.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ip address keeps reveting edits and has ststed in their edit summary "I think he is blind" - Is it possible that there is a little POV in the reversions ?
 * Washington states his case and I have given the reference - it is NPOV and suggesting that he might be is not an extra uncertainty - the suggestion is that he might be - if they wished to suggest he is blind there were plenty of ways in which that could have been done, for example have him translate from the braille by having him run his fingers accross the book as he read it out - but they did not.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not reverting based on opinion, but rather the summary from Sight & Sound (published by the British Film Institute, not an amatuer body) which quotes directly "Eli, now revealed to be blind", and the script which also states "he is blind" which I have linked via PDF. The twist is that he is blind, the hints are; the first fight occurs in the tunnel (to help with hearing), he keeps his glasses on for the whole film, he is obsessed with keeping clean (so he can locate others by smell), he doesn't shoot until shot at and he reads a braille bible. The big twist is that Eli is blind, to say that is opinion is to miss the basic structure of the film and hints within. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * THat sounds like OR (On their behalf, not yours Darren) - I have reverted again as Wsahington says he deliberately did not portray him as blind and as he says in his quote - God may have just told him to learn Braille. Sight and sound is a magazine and the ref you have given is supposition.
 * THe phrase in your reverted text says "who is shown to actually be blind himself, begins" but there is not ref with a link to the script there.
 * It seems that there are many more refs and editors who think that the film allows you to believe in blind or not blind, but the facts are that there is more evidence to point to may be than is and more consensus to support that.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not OR, Sight & Sound publish the full plot for every film reviewed, spoilers and all. They list the full credits (Key Hairstylist Joann Stafford-Chaney) and give the length of film as 10,577 feet +10 frames. The level of precision is such that they list times to the half second, and the plot clearly states "Eli, long revealed t have been blind, dies."; that they may be wrong is not the point, it meets WP:V and WP:RS, and here is the script in PDF form and on page 110 it says Eli is blind. The point of the film is that he is blind the film is about little else once the twist has been revealed, to wilfully deny at this point is to be obstinate. He may or may not be blind, but the most comprehensive source on the matter says he is, to avoid giving away the twist Denzel Washington hedges it and the writer hedges it and the directors hedge it, but in a film magazine which gives you the length to 10 frames says he is blind, and so that is the source. To remove it is to deny the source, and removed sourced information to add "which means he may or may not be blind", an equivocation that does not fit with summaries. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like you are entering edit war territory with just about everyone by constantly reverting their edits which through talking had settled on the edit I made in the early hours this morning.
 * After discussion with the IP editor we reached a compromise only to have you completely revert all that we had discussed.
 * It is not right that you do that on the basis of a sight and sound article and the consensus was to leave it as "may be".
 * I put in two different interviews which Washington, which are also states that the character is deliberately not shown as being blind. We left he article reflecting the NPOV - neither non blind nor blind.
 * The script is three and a half years old. TO say that he is revealed as blind when the quotes from Washington, which are valid refs and cannot be denied as such as they too meet WP:V and WP:RS, say that he was not blind should not be allowed to imply that either he is blind as has been all the way through, or that he is not blind and has not been all the way through. THey should reflect all the sources and be NPOV.
 * You cannot jsut keep reverting to your particular brand of truth - this isn't Mythbusters lol - and say that all the people involved with the film hedged it ! Perhaps they were telling the truth - perhaps they weren't, the point is that all we have is what they actually say and write and can be quoted on and so used as refs. They all say "he might have been, he might not have been". All we can say is that one magazine that was not in the film and did not play a part in its production and quotes the script (so therefore it is the same source as the script) says that and the actor says he deliberately played him NPOV on the blindness.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I cannot find in the script where it says ""Eli, long revealed to have been blind, dies"


 * It says so in the script as Darrenhusted said on page 110 "Eli removes his goggles. Solara can’t believe what she sees. His eyes are pale, milky-white, dead. TOTALLY BLIND." (it's actually in all-caps in the script). The biggest issue here is that the movie itself does not explicitly state that he is blind and that the producers made it so so that people can reach their own conclusions.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, plots don't need references (normally). Second, any interviews will be cagey, as there is nothing to be gained from giving away the twist in a pre-release interview. Third, Sight & Sound is a well established film magazine published by the BFI, and they are the only magazine that publish full plots and don't simply hint at twists and the line about Eli being blind does not need clumsy and badly written qualifiers, just quote S&S without plagiarising it. That plot twist has a reference and I have repeatedly added it back in (in invisible quotes, so as not to interrupt the summary) there is no need to appease an IP who wants to ignore the obvious (as it is stated in the script in CAPS) one big plot twist (the first two being "the Book of Eli" is the bible, and second it is braille). There is no need to compromise because the twist (as given in S&S) is Eli is blind, that the producers are coy about is no surprise. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Xeworle - the quote in the script I couldn't find was "Eli, long revealed to have been blind, dies" - unfortunately it appears Darren is making us follow his conclusions
 * @Darren - Do not cloud over the issues, one of your major quotes does not exist in the script, the interviews are just as good sources as the article (if not better) and the consensus was to leave it NPOV - you chose to ignore all these things.
 * You are fully aware that anyone sighted or not can read braille, you know full well that the Bible is the bible and it is no surprise that the only one left in the world would be one that no average person could read - there is no twist there at all. You are making constructs to support your reversions and you have done it over 20 times.
 * If you look back through the talk page you can see that this was discussed many times and one entry in the script saying he is revealed to be blind at the end which does not mean that he was in the film as it is not spoken or talked about by anyone involved in the production, plus the fact that even if he was blind at the end does not mean he was all the way through the film or his journey + you saying that the interviews are all lies to prevent spoilers is ridiculous and blatant POV and assuming that I am some noob editor who doesnt know what a hidden message is for is just plain silly.
 * I was not and would not appease anyone. You obviously refuse to listen to consensus and think that you are right no matter what anyone says or thinks nor how many other editors disagree with you or how ever many refs they provide which contradict yours.
 * You do not need to reply as I have better things to spend my time on and yet I know you like having the last word - let me guess "I am right and your refs are no good as my magazine has to be right cause it can quote the company saying how many frames are in the film" after all do you think the prod company didn't know how long their own film was ? did you think the magazine they rolled it out and measured it ???
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sight & Sound is published by the BFI, they have private screenings, they have to splice their own 35mm film they always give a full summary for each film they review, along with the exact length of the film (key word:film). The quote comes from the S&S review, and plot summary, as the invisible warning that I have added several times and you have removed says. On page 110 of the script it says TOTALLY BLIND in caps, indicating it is a major twist. That the film is ambiguous does not change the fact that the Sight & Sound reviewer (Henry K Miller) on page 52 of Vol 20 Issue 3 reached the same conclusion as several editors on Wikipedia (myself included); Eli is blind. This explains why he fought in the tunnel (enhanced hearing), why he was fastidious about tracking down soap (enhanced smell), why he didn't shoot until shot upon (so as to locate where the shooter was) and why he asked "are their hands shaking" when he met George and Martha, and finally why he never removed his glasses (because he is blind, but wants to disguise this by obscuring his eyes). That all of that does not convince you and that you still want to try and accommodate an IP editor who seems to want to wilfully ignore these facts (plus the review and the script) despite the twist having a clean source (from a magazine published for the last 70 years, not a blog) means that you edits are to the detriment of the summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That shows how little research you do before making statements - that particular IP editor sates "I believe he is blind" Chaosdruid (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the IP editor keep reverting to "which indicates that he may be blind". Darrenhusted (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me I am wrong when it is you that is wrong - if you continue to want the last word at least get it right - See edit 02:26 29 June "Their interpretation is not necessarily a fact. I think he was blind," you are acting a bit childishly now Darren Chaosdruid (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my talk page, we cannot make an effective judgment on Eli being blind or not. We must leave it as ambiguous, as that is how the film leaves it. Duh... 70.109.163.193 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The best bet is to change the plot summary to state "the camera then slowly pans up to Eli's eyes" or something to that effect and leave it at that. A separate section can be included on reviewers' interpretations of the twist. So long as the section continues to use sources and avoid original research, it can be included. Leave the plot section to what is seen on screen and interpretations and themes to their own sections. This will hopefully prevent future back-and-forth edits on the plot section. Without sources about the twist, direct editors and IPs to IMDB message boards if they want to discuss it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I beleive we are allowed to cite within the plot section, if there is a point that needs clarification. Darrenhusted kindly gave us a cite for such a plot point.
 * The link to the Washington interview, where he says he didn't play the character as blind, is irrelevant to the plot. In a production section, it would be valuable, but as to the story, what actually happens in the film, no. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And in the film, there is no proof that he is blind. The film does not allow us to make a judgment there. That is why we have to leave it ambiguous, because the film leaves it like that. How many times must I say it? 70.109.163.193 (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, what I wish to point out is that whether or not you think he is blind is irrelevant. I mean, I think he was blind, but the fact that we don't know it means we can't make judgment. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go, "whether or not you think he is blind is irrelevant. I mean, I think he was blind, but the fact that we don't know it means we can't make judgment". That's the point, we're not making judgement by saying Eli is revealed to be blind.
 * In this case, the writers explicitly had a character who was revealed to be blind. No judgement, no editor analysis, just a cite that says how things are. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are making a judgment. The film was purposefully left ambiguous on the subject, and if they wanted to make him blind, for sure, wouldn't they have put something in the film that indicated that he was blind, for sure? Reference it somewhere else in the article, sure, but the fact that the plot makes no clear cut distinction on whether he is blind or not means we shouldn't say he is blind for sure in the plot section. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no judgement to make, that's the point! It is your opinion that the film was ambiguous, the cite from the script states clearly that Eli is blind. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But the movie doesn't. The very fact that there is argument over this says that the film is ambiguous. Maybe the filmmakers decided not to clearly and indisputably say that Eli is blind in the film because they wanted it to be ambiguous, who knows. But the movie is ambiguous on it, so we have to leave it ambiguous as well. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The script was quoted, that pretty much settles it. That you beleive it was ambiguous is your own opinion. As I said, your cite showing Washington's opinion of his performance might suit a production section. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There’s a statement in this article about that fact that later on in the movie reveals that Denzel’s character is discovered to be blind. Just because he can read Braille doesn’t make him blind. Examples: 1.) In the beginning of the movie, when Eli is in the abandoned home that he stays for the night and uses a moist KFC towelete to bath with and then wakes up the next morning, when the sun creeps in and shines on his face, he’s startled, wakes up and begins to examine his surroundings visually. After he repacks his gear, he walks to the window and looks out of a broken hole, also examining his area and surroundings. He didn’t smell or just feel the air, but looked around. 2.)  After his fight with the highway cannibal men, he reaches an over pass and looks at the landscape of the city. 3.) At the pawn shop whenever the shop owner would point to something, he looked that way or at whatever item he was pointing at. 4.) Before going to the bar across the street, he’s standing by the window, watching people go in and out of it. 5.) At the bar he walks through an entire room and heads straight to the bartender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.166 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Eli's blindness 2
At around minute eleven Eli is shown to be feeling the book with his eyes closed, mouthing what he reads. At the end of the movie the camera shoots close-up to his eyes. There is no other reason to do this except to highlight his eyes, and there is nothing remarkable about them except that they don't see. The bible's braille. The writer very well knew the phrase "blind faith" would come to the viewer's mind. I'm reminded by this discussion page how ineffective Wikipedia is doomed to be. You go through the whole of your life assuming things. You assume your teacher is right. Often they are half-right. You assume your most trusted media outlet gives you true information. You assume there are people on this earth, though the only evidence of that indeed comes from your own "original research" through observation. Wikipedia should not exist on the opinions of people whose qualifications cannot be assessed, and for that you have the wisdom of sources, which themselves inevitably trickle down to original research through observation. Not everything is quantified.

http://www.mediafire.com/?i3mrmnmymkm That is a copy of the screenplay. It's 109 pages. On page 105 it says, I quote, "His eyes are pale, milky white, dead. TOTALLY BLIND." Seriously, that other wikipedia editor was correct. While some aspects of the screenplay may have been changed during the pragmatic filming process, the movie's twist, on which American movies tend to make their bottom line, would not have been altered. The screenplay is the primary source if the movie is intentionally vague. It does not mean Eli may or may not be blind, since he is "totally blind." It means the movie made a few million dollars more because people came home and told their friends "You gotta see it. Tell me what you think." Denzel Washington isn't the almighty source on a character he played. He was informed by the director and by the screenplay, and it seems only one of those is providing a definitive conclusion as to whether or not he is blind.

Since he is blind, I expect you fine wikipedia editors not to bicker any longer about the film's ambiguity. It isn't stated explicitly, but neither is much else in the context of audio-visual art since as an artist you don't have to write everything down for the audience--though, in this case, it was actually written down, and Denzel obviously got paid because he didn't disobey the script's core twist. 98.87.67.43 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The film leaves it ambiguous. It suggests that he is blind, but is intentionally ambiguous. That is the point I am making. That is why the plot section of the film shouldn't say that he is for sure blind. Because the plot of the film doesn't make it unambiguous that he is blind or not. There can be a note in the production section about the script saying he is blind, or whatever. And your point about assuming is stupid. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accurate and unbiased source of info. If the people here think it is okay to put assumptions in the articles, then you are right, Wikipedia is doomed. 70.109.163.193 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's stupid? I said sourcing is valuable to a point. If you'd rather not source a claim which can be verified by the script, by whose authority the film was directed and acted, it's your choice. Or would you rather wait for a critical article saying as much? I wonder where it would get its sources from? Maybe the script?

Yeah, though, since it seems there are more than you few people arguing this ambiguity, since while not explicit it is implicit and so not ambiguous, as there simply aren't people who would argue he isn't blind if they have watched the film, or read a certain page of the script, a new section should be added noting there have been discussions which have dichotomised whether or not he's blind. All right. You add that, you find a source showing two viewpoints, then you realise there's no room for the view which says he isn't blind since you, of course, have read the script. "TOTALLY BLIND" isn't ambiguous. The fact that wasn't explicitly added in the film was the skill of a director who knows the American taste for twist endings, and knows a movie in which everything is stated expositionally is doomed to poor critical reviews. It doesn't work in literature and it doesn't work in film. The most basic adage in either of those two media is "Show, don't tell," so they showed it. They didn't carve "BLIND" into Eli's forehead. They did leave clues which inform a viewer on his second viewing of the film Eli is blind and has been blind since the catastrophe. Those are subjective only in that near everything else written about art is subjective. When those subjectivities come into play, you source it, yes, and in this case the script is a perfectly suitable source. It's the authority.

Since you're busy here I expect you to studiously rewrite every other movie article, them being ambiguous and all. But I get your point, so I propose either saying he is blind and sourcing the script, or saying it was intentionally left as a matter of debate by the film-makers. As is I don't have a problem with saying he's blind, since there's a rational source in lieu of an expositional movie. To say it's a matter of debate in the plot section wouldn't be kosher. If you're uncomfortable sourcing the script, I'd like to know why since when one reads it there's no doubt left as to his blindness. It isn't the movie, it is the movie.74.240.248.84 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument for ambiguity is based on an editor's own opinion (mostly that of IP 70.109.163.193), the counter argument is that the script (from the cite given) says what's what quite clearly. It bolds it, it's a point to be made, clearly. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The script says he's blind, the S&S summary says he is blind (and they are correct about that film and summaries for all films released each month); so even though the film may be deliberately vague (for the purpose of hiding a twist) the sources are clear. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the script states that he is blind, and the writer Gary Whitta mentioned in an article the blindness of the character should be enough to demonstrate the point. It is unfortunate when appearing at a press junket for the film Washington was so vague in his response to the question, but it is understandable why he was, as he did not want to just blatantly give away the big plot twist of the film. But there are several things that Washington did with his performance, or what the Hughes Brothers chose to do with the film, that made it quite apparent that Eli is blind.


 * At the beginning of the film when entering the deserted house he trips over furniture while making his way to the closet door.
 * He pushes a stack of dishes in the kitchen, indicating he is feeling his way along the room, as he cannot see what is there.
 * That night he is reading the bible with his eyes closed.
 * In the morning he is awoken by the feel of the suns heat on his face.
 * After the fight near the underpass he feels with his foot to find the mans severed hand.
 * After entering Tom Waits shop and the biker gang rides into town, Eli cocks his head slightly to (listen) to the sound of the motors. He recognizes the sound, he never completely turns around to (look) like any person would if they had eye sight.
 * When he enters the bar the Hughes brothers shoot the sequence of him walking up to the bar by focusing on nothing but (sound) including Eli hearing the slurping sound of patrons drinking. The purpose of this was to give an indicator of how Eli was taking in the room and being aware of where he was going...by sound, not by sight.
 * He tells Solara he walks by fate, not by sight. Of course that can be taken in several ways, but given the story structure it is reasonable to conclude what he is saying.
 * He is EXTREMELY defensive and unwilling to allow Solara to touch or see the book. The main logical reasoning behind that is he does not want anyone to know it is braille and therefore know he is blind.  There would really be no other logical reason to be so protective and not allow the innocent girl to just look at it.
 * When Eli and Solara approach the house on their journey, Eli kicks at the very first step to the house, indicating he is finding where the steps start so he knows he has steps to walk on.
 * When it is time to exit the home and get away from George, Eli asks Solara to open the door for him. Again, a subtle indicator that he has made the request because he in fact is blind and knows she will find the door handle quicker then he would.

If Eli was not blind it would render many aspects of the film unecessary and the key plot twist unwarranted. I have read/heard arguments over such small details like how did Eli know he was caring KFC napkins if he could not see them? How do we know when he was given them? Maybe he had sight at that time....or maybe a person he trusted told them what they were when he got them in trade? It is perfectly understandable if some choose to take the position that some of the things that Eli accomplished, as a blind person, were absurd, unrealistic, or whatever. That is fine, and that should be open to debate and discussion. But to me there is no question that the character, in the eyes of the film makers, was blind. fsm83 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC


 * The summary says that Eli "is revealed to be blind". Well actually he isn't, furthermore the fact of his blindness is disputed.  So the article shouldn't state this as a fact.


 * It is not clear that he is blind throughout. He is blind at the end, as he no longer needs sight.  But remember who he is named after. The biblical Eli is blind at the end of his long journey through life, but not at the start.  Eli may have divine protection, but it is limited to keeping him alive.  He receives no guidance - that is why it takes him decades to cross the USA.  He could not survive if he were blind.  The bible he found was braille, so in 30 odd years he learns braille....124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The summary says "he is revealed to be blind" - whether that means he's blind throughout is actually ambiguous. You have very little faith in the blind if you think that adaptation would not allow them to survive.  WP:CONSENSUS appears to be to continue to include it.  If you would like to propose (in a new section) new wording, and we can see if new consensus can be obtained  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The screenwriter, Gary Whitta posted this on his twitter account on 7/24/10. I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

http://twitter.com/gwhitta

''One day I'm going to write a long blog post detailing every single clue that Eli is blind the whole movie. People are confused about this? ''  Fsm83 (talk • 19:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC


 * Don't do that ... the intent is for the viewer to say "WTF?!??! He's blind!", then go back through the movie to figure out the clues, just like in the Sixth Sense. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've watched the movie without knowing any hint that he might be blind, and I didn't get it. Reading Braille book is not a clue: that's just the last (known) one, and it happened to be in Braille. His good smell and hearing easily fade with his "dodging bullets" ability. Carnegie's subsequent death is also not implied.--Azarien (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are way too many clues that he's not blind. For example, when he's walking past the car in the beginning, he stops, looks at the skeleton, opens the door, and checks it for shoes. He wouldn't have seen the car, much less the skeleton, without vision. Another good example is when he's talking to the lady at the tunnel. She says her water is in the cart, he looks at the cart, he reaches in and grabs it, and decides he doesn't want it. Even the severed hand thing could be explained as him just moving it away from the guy to prove the point that it's not his anymore. When Eli is watching the raiders on the overpass, he ducks down behind the rock and watches the drama unfold. If he were blind, he wouldn't need to look 'around' the rock, he could sit comfortably behind it, and listen with clarity. After the scene with the raiders, he is looking at a road sign before entering the village. Finally, when he's in the store, he tells the shop keeper to take his finger off the trigger as he points toward the trigger of the shotgun (presumably so he won't be accidentally shot by a nervous shop keeper)... and that would be impossible for him to see without being able to see. His senses of smell and hearing are enhanced, for sure, but only because I think he lived with blindness prior to the war. He speaks of being in a shelter, which makes sense if he was handicap and lived in an assisted living type of facility, he would be one of the first to go into a nuke shelter. Then he says when he emerged from the shelter, he heard a voice. I think this was a way for him to explain that he miraculously regained his sight after the bombs dropped, and that he was given his sight by God to fulfill his mission. Being able to read braille is not some superhuman ability reserved for people who are actively blind, and you don't lose it if you regain your sight. The fact that the bible is in braille is an important fact because when he's telling Solara about the bible, he says people everywhere were trying to destroy them. Well, if it's in braille, it's possible nobody would know it's a bible unless some of those people read through every braille book looking for bibles. In short: the braille bible surviving because it's in braille, Eli was blind before the war and regained his sight, and being able to read braille is not exclusive to blind people. I don't doubt that the script was more clear about his blindness, but this obviously did not say consistent into the movie. I don't care what the screenwriter says, scripts are subject to the director's whims. Zenmastervex (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whitta is the original writer and despite not being a director, remained involved in its making. You can read his own comments about it:
 * Whitta's own words
 * "'If you watch that performance a second time you will notice this is something we worked on and did a lot of research on, but anytime he seems like he’s visually engaged with you or reacting to something it’s actually coming from someplace else. He can hear where you’re standing, he can hear where you’re moving, he can smell things and he touches things. He has a tactile relationship in the film… It’s like he opens that cupboard and he drags the dishes across the cupboard, things like that. There’s a lot of little clues. I’ve heard a few people say they’ve felt cheated by the ending and I’ve heard from people who were blown away by it. It’s going to divide people and it’s clearly working for a lot of people. For me, the point of that twist isn’t a “gotcha” moment. Here’s what I feel and take away: if you believe he’s blind then everything he did in the film had to be impossible or a miracle unless he’s genuinely been guided by god throughout the entire film. Picking snipers off rooftops from fifty-feet away with a pistol is difficult for anyone. He’s doing things that are uncanny. My view is that when you see what the book is and that he’s blind that to me tells you god must exist. If not, then there’s no other explanation for how he’s been able to do all that he did.'"


 * Bottom line is that Eli is blind, Whitta wants to give you only subtle clues (like the nuclear issue) until the end, where he hits the reader/watcher over the head with the fact it's a religious miracle.MartinezMD (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of the scenes mentioned by Zenmastervex as evidence that he's not blind might actually provide better evidence that he is blind.
 * At the beginning, he's walking down the road and it seems like he's going to walk right past that car, paying no attention whatsoever.  Only when he gets right up on it (smelling distance?) does he even seem to notice it only just then, even though it would have been in his sight line for a long time before that.  When he turns to go to it, he puts out his bag as if to feel for exactly where the door is, rather than just grabbing the handle.  And when he wants shoes, he feels down the leg of the skeleton to the feet, rather than just looking down to see if shoes are there.
 * When the woman tells him the water is in the cart, he does not just reach down and grab it right away. Even though it's in plain sight, he feels around for it for a second.
 * In the shotgun scene, he'd just handed the gun back to the shop owner and his own hand was at the trigger when he did so. So he easily would have felt the owner's finger go back to the trigger when the owner took the gun back.
 * Where you say he's "looking" at the sign, I don't know how one would determine that. His head seems pointed down the road past the sign to me, but the camera shot is from behind him, so it's tough to tell.  But in any event, he's holding his MP3 player to his ear at that point, so his attention seems to be more on what he's hearing, rather than whatever his eyes were pointed toward.  Even if one assumes he can see and that his eyes are pointed at the sign, it still doesn't look like to me like his attention is at all on that sign; it's on the fact that his MP3 player has stopped working.
 * I can think of no good explanation for the rock scene; he does seem like he's forgoing the opportunity to duck more completely out of sight. But given the gazillion other clues that he is blind throughout (and the Whitta's comments as noted above), it seems much more likely to me that that's an anomaly than that it was a deliberate "he's not blind" clue the directors wanted to put in.  Mwelch (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Solution?
Why not simply add a new section in the article discussing the points for/against Eli's blindness, with links to references or interviews to illustrate them? The debate certainly has some encyclopedic value and would extinguish a useless edit war, unfortunately maintained by registered users. This would enable to write the plot section without mention of Eli's hypothetical blindness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.27.75 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no argument here. The writer, Gary Whitta, states he is blind and wants the reader/watcher to learn that as a surprise.  You can read the section above where I quoted him. MartinezMD (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The screenplay does say he is blind but the movie itself does not. The version of movie that I saw in May 2011 leaves it so ambiguous as to be not even considered by the viewer.  Indeed, when he wakes up in the abandoned house, he looks up at the sky and his eyes not only appear normal, but they are looking up towards the sun.  After viewing the film it didn't even occur to me that he might be blind until I read this article.  If he's supposed to be blind, then Washington's acting is not only woefully inadequate but the Hughes' interpretation of the Whitta screenplay is terribly deficient in that respect.--KJRehberg (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sight & Sound are the only UK film magazine to give a full summary, and they revealed the twist as "Eli is blind", coupled with the screenplay, and the writer's own comments, and many other sources around the internet, including a number of WP users, it is obvious that the twist is that. This matter has been settled for over a year. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting in my own two cents here, the movie itself is the source for the plot in Wikipedia pages. This is why there are no references. There should be nothing affecting the plot section except what we see in the movie. In this movie, the question of whether or not he is blind is left to the viewer (as this discussion page should be plenty of proof!) and is not laid out in black and white. With that said, I submit that the article can just remove the "now revealed to be blind" line without reducing the accuracy of the movie for those who think he is blind, and increasing the accuracy for those who think he isn't or think it's up in the air. Deejaye6 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[EDIT] WP: Filmplot says it best: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." The events on screen do not provide one interpretation. Take out the "revealed to be blind" line, and create a new section. Heck, the discussion here alone shows a need for it. Deejaye6 (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:CONSENSUS. Every so often a driveby IP makes the change contrary to said consensus.  Clearly, when you read the entire conversations and "proof", consensus appears correct.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, your "consensus" does not appear correct. I read too many people arguing that he isn't blind. I see no consensus at all; all I see are the folks who were arguing against his being blind just dropping off the discussion. And I don't see how a "driveby IP" makes the line "now revealed to be blind" valid. The plot is supposed to be based on what. We. See. Not what we interpret or read about in secondary sources. Even the script itself is meaningless in the plot section since the movie we see is actually a bit different from the script, as most movies are. The plot So why not take out those simple five words and make the plot accurate? No matter which way you cut it, his being blind or not is left to interpretation. By Wikipedia's rules, this should be in a separate section, and not in the plot. 96.231.44.82 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming evidence for Eli being blind is there, and has multiple sources. BWilkins is right, every once in a while an IP removes the line "revealed to be blind" against consensus. If we only leant on one single source (the S&S review) then a thousand IP editors would still all be wrong; that we have more than one source revealing the twist means that this is a settled debate by regular editors on this page. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of consensus. We have the writer, actively involved in the film, stating Eli is blind and he wants to surprise the viewer.  Read the source. Here it is again in case someone has missed it. I already posted a block quote before - http://thefilmstage.com/2010/01/18/interview-part-1-gary-whitta-on-the-book-of-eli/ MartinezMD (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That does NOT belong in the plot section! Nothing should be in the plot section except what is seen on the screen.  If you want to bring in the script, then create a section called "Blindness controversy" or whatever.  The *movie* does not say he is blind.  The plot is based on the *movie* and not on secondary sources (like the script). Deejaye6 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The movie also doesn't say the soil is sandy/brown but it shows it. Not all in a movie is spoken.  Some of it requires the viewer to see it.  In the reliable source I've linked, the writer explains that.MartinezMD (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wise guy, and if his blindness were as ovious as the color of the ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And excuse me for using the wrong wording that enabled you last argument.  Allow me to rephrase:  The *movie* does not show conclusively that he is blind.  And since the plot section (according to WP rules) should only include what is shown in the movie, and not what is brought up in secondary sources (which includes writers' notes and the script), "now revealed to be blind" must be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejaye6 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and we come full circle to WP:CONSENSUS. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by this talisman you keep bringing out called "consensus." I read the entire page on it, and it says that consensus is used when there is not a clear policy already in place.  "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community."  In this case, there is a policy.  WP:FILMPLOT  The fact remains that the current edit draws from secondary sources, which is a violation of that rule.  Simply saying "consensus" does not make it okay.  That's kind of like saying that Socrates needs to be put to death because he goes against the consensus that the earth is the center of the universe.  Just because there is a consensus does not mean that it is right.  If I may quote from the consensus page you linked: "Consensus can change."  and  "Consensus discussion has a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense."  I do not mean to offend here, but your reversion of my edit does not seem to have any reason.  You claim consenus and deliberately ignore WP policy.  Why are you so very against removing 5 words and creating a new section on his being blind or not?  I submit that this would not only make the plot more accurate (again, based *only* on the movie and not interviews/articles/scripts), but would improve the page itself. Deejaye6 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, just like the discussion on a different topic at the bottom of the page, why not make a little draft right here on the talkpage - see if you can get consensus for it. Right now, there's no consensus to remove the blind aspect. Write something that you can get consensus for. This isn't rocket science, and it is the purpose of an article talkpage. You have read the policy - consensus has NOT YET CHANGED; try to do something that achieves it. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Are you saying that consensus cannot be changed unless I start a new section in the Talk page and then get folks to agree to that section? That seems backwards to me, and more trouble than it's worth. I have made my point repeatedly that the plot is strictly from the movie, and not from scripts or interviews, and then pointed out that the movie is vague on his being blind, so it should not be in the plot as an absolute. If this is not enough to change people's minds and make them stop repeating over and over "That's what the writer said in an interview," or "A consensus has already been reached," then nothing will. I am signing off this thread and hoping that someone reads this and opens their eyes. Thank you all for the discussion. Deejaye6 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:FILMPLOT "'Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section.'" Some do not agree Eli is shown as blind, however the reliable secondary source says he is, and gives examples on how the initial clues were intentionally subtle. We have a clear WP policy for this instance, and that is what I am using. MartinezMD (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I know I said I was done, but this is ridiculous. How can you keep ignoring the interviews with Denzel Washington that ChaosDruid posted in June 2010?  That makes the very next line of WP:FILMPLOT important.  "'If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article.'"  This is absolutely the case in this issue.  Denzel Washington's interview said he wasn't sure himself if Eli is blind or not.  Since we have two separate secondary sources conflicting here (and no, the script that was three full years older than the movie is not more correct than the actor who portrayed the blind-or-not-blind character), this is a classic example of a film event with multiple secondary sources that have "differing perspectives." Deejaye6 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as there is *some* description of his visual gaze not being focused, the appearance of his eyes, and something to suggest he could be blind would be alright by me, with the addition of a section on the blindness issue. I think it is clear Whitta wants the issue of blindness and faith to be a focus based on his interview.  And Washington isn't saying Eli has sight either. MartinezMD (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let me see if I'm reading you right on this. Are you saying that we can take out "now revealed to be blind" as long as we indicate that it is "suggested"?  Seems a bit pointless to me, especially since not everyone gets the suggestion.  I think it would be best to just drop that line altogether.  But I am open to discussion on this. Deejaye6 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that he is blind or that it is suggested strongly is my view. If we say that the issue of sight and blindness aren't purposeful or even present in the movie, then somehow both the interviews with Whitta and Washington are being overlooked. Whitta's comments have all been subtle and his creation is the same - as another example is the clues that the apocalypse was nuclear without directly saying.  So if it's an issue of a vote, mine remains that the statement remain or that there be a strong suggestion, because that's how he states it.MartinezMD (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Eli is blind, not olny does it say it in the script but when Sight & Sound reviewed it in the summary they said "Eli is blind", and when talking about the "big twist" in the film all sites that can reveal spoilers say "Eli is blind", and the writer of the film says "Eli is blind"; to take that and then be coy about it would be a violation of the basic point of having an encyclopedia. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, I mean no offense here, but based on what you just wrote, it would seem that you are blind as well. The script was three years old when the movie was made, and the director and actor went a different route to make his blindness merely a suggestion.  As there are multiple secondary sources with differing viewpoints on this subject, the line that he is "revealed to be blind" must be deleted, since the movie does *not* make that clear.  Instead, the blind-or-not question should be put into a new section separate from the plot. Deejaye6 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to strikethrough your violation of WP:NPA above ... quickly. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense was meant, and it was not an attack. When I said he seems to be blind it's because his post made it appear that he hadn't read what I had to repeat. Deejaye6 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since some of us "see" that he's blind and some of us do not, we can't "just describe what the movie shows" since we disagree on what it is showing. The reliable secondary sources state that he is blind, so I'm going with that.MartinezMD (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the only concrete thing the movie actually *shows* is that he has memorized the Bible! We can infer from his talking with the girl that he memorized the Bible he was carrying, which means he learned Braille.  This is not proof that he is blind.  When you (Martinez) have to turn to the old script and a review based on that script for the proof, and yet the director and star say it's up in the air, it sounds to me that the "now revealed to be blind" is not true, since it is only implied. Deejaye6 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that to me it does show he is blind. I'm not turning to the script to convince myself.  I'm using it to prove my view to those who disagree.  Also, I don't think we have the director's statements (unless I missed it).  We do have the guy who actually wrote the script saying Eli is blind.MartinezMD (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Okay, I was confused by what you had written before.  Can you tell me what about the movie itself shows that he is blind?  Not how it is inferred or implied; how is it shown?  (I'm really not trying to be a smartass; I just don't understand how you can say that it's shown.)  Deejaye6 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is shown when his eyes are shown, and when he sits down to dictate the Bible from memory from the Braille Bible he has been carrying for the entire film and which is the "Book of Eli" of the title of the film. That anyone can then pretend that the twist of the film is not that he is blind is a little incredulous. Further to that in the Sight & Sound review the summary says "Eli is blind" which confirms what everyone who saw the film and thought that the twist at the end was "Eli is blind". Darrenhusted (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And we're back on the merry-go-round again. Denzel Washington (you know, the guy who played Eli?) said in an interview (referenced above) that it was unclear if Eli was blind or not.  Your Sight & Sound review references the original script which (I have mentioned several times now) was three years old when the movie was made.  Many, many movies have script changes between the original and when the film is shot, and even the final shooting script can vary from what is finally shown on screen.  As there are multiple secondary sources with differing viewpoints on this topic, and since there is nothing in that scene that says 100% that he is blind, it must be removed!!  Just because the guy has learned Braille doesn't mean that he is automatically blind.  All that is "revealed" at the end is that he has memorized the Bible.  Period.  Instead of saying "Eli, now revealed to be blind," it should say, "Eli, now revealed to have memorized the Bible,".  It is more accurate and not left up to any interpretation at all.  The whole debate on whether or not he is blind should then be moved into its own section (again, as I mentioned above) as per WP:Filmplot. Deejaye6 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually the Sight & Sound summary was written by the reviewer watching the film, not from reading the script. And even if it was written by reading the script it still qualifies as a second reliable source that confirms Eli is blind. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. You have two sources that claim it is so.  I have two sources (the director and the actor) who claim it is not so.  And who the **** cares if a reviewer says it is so?  What makes him the end-all, be-all source?  There are multiple sources with differing views!  Multiple.  Differing.  Do you not see this?  Or do you simply discount the Denzel Washington interview?  If so, why? Deejaye6 (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked once already before. Where did the director say Eli is not blind?  Do we have a link please?  Also, Denzel did't say he's not blind.  He's clearly being coy in the interview and says he didn't know if Eli was or wasn't.MartinezMD (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't aware that we needed Mr. Washington to say that he is not blind. That is NOT what I said.  I said he offered a different viewpoint: that he *may not* be blind.  That is all that is required for this line in the plot of this page to be changed to "now revealed to have memorized the Bible".  "'There’s this whole issue, without giving it away, is he blind, is he not. … If you look at the movie, sometimes I actually bumped into stuff — and they used it. But it was actually an accident or it was God’s will. In a couple of scenes, I bumped and tripped over stuff and they kept it in there. I’m sure there will be people [who say], “Oh, there’s the clue. … I told you he was [blind] because he bumped into that.” So maybe he can [see], maybe he can’t? Maybe he can see a little bit? Maybe his eyes are clouded? I don’t know. http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2010/01/the-book-of-eli-interview-with.html'"


 * As for the directors, I believe that Denzel's own words reflect that they agreed with this interpretation, which is why I mention them in the same breath. I realize that there is only one quote, so only one referenceable (word?) source, so if you like, drop that from my reasoning.  But, I do first invite you to take a look at this quote from January 2010: "'How many changes were there [TO THE SCRIPT]? Albert: It went through a lot of changes. I think, if you saw the first one, you saw that it has the same skeletal structure.'"  A lot of changes to the script.  Was his being "revealed to be blind" one of them?  Hard to say.  Does it cast the script as an end-all/be-all source for the plot into doubt?  YES.  Change this line and put in a new section about the controversy. Deejaye6 (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay! I thought of something that might work to change your minds.  Since you all are clinging so firmly to a review that says it is so, here are reviews that do *not* say it is so.  Reviews that say anything about it, one way or the other, are not easy to find, as http://www.brianorndorf.com/2010/01/film-review-the-book-of-eli.html tells us "Releasing studio Warner Brothers has politely asked film critics to refrain from spoiling the ending of the movie." But the point I am making is, there *are* sources out here that have a DIFFERING VIEWPOINT other than "he is blind."  And I cannot believe how many times I have to repeat this.  Anyway, here are some more differing viewpoints, as if the main actor's interview weren't enough:
 * http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2010/01/movie-review-the-book-of-eli.html
 * http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/01/19/discuss-how-do-you-see-the-twist-in-the-book-of-eli/
 * http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2010/01/24/the-book-of-eli-initial-impressions-spoilers/
 * And finally, the IMDb synopsis doesn't say a thing about him being blind:
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037705/synopsis


 * So there you have it. Multiple sources just as valid as your review.  Can you find more reviews that say he is blind?  Yes!  And then I can find more that say it's vague?  Yes!  Can you point out that the screenwriter says he is blind?  Yes!  Can I point out that the actor who played the character says it's vague?  Yet again, yes!


 * How many times can we bounce this back and forth before you folks accept that the WP:FILMPLOT policy has laid it out clearly for us, and told us that in cases like this (again, with "multiple, differing secondary sources,") we are to write the plot as simply as possible (that means deleting the line "now revealed that he is blind" or changing it to "now revealed to have memorized the entire Bible) and then create a new section to show the controversy. And when you think about it, memorizing the entire Bible (even over 30 years) is no mean feat.


 * This is not an election where the side with more votes wins, this is a discussion that is now over, and the consensus must change. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt now that there are multiple sources with differing viewpoints.  (Heck, it was proven when the first guy posted Denzel Washington's interview...)  Come on, people; I cannot be the only one who sees that this is the only right thing to do with this plot.  I know you believe that he is blind.  Actually, SO DO I!  But it is not revealed to be so in the movie!  It's just implied!  Please.  Change this line. Deejaye6 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

S&S is the magazine of the bfi, a credible source. imdb and some blogs are not a counterbalance, and as the twist is self evident, and the summary in a trusted magazine source confirms it I see no reason to remove the line. The only reason to change it would to be coy, and that would be unencyclopaedic. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see consensus having changed yet ... in fact, Deejay's "proof" has actually proven what the article actually says now. I think we're done here. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding concerns
I am baffled that anyone could suppose that Eli went through the entire movie blind -- he makes and maintains eye contact with everyone he talks to. Compare to Solara's mother who does no such thing. The difference is stark and I don't think it could be written off as incompetent acting or directorial indifference. Perhaps as he is close to death his vision has deteriorated, but that's about all I could buy. Vranak (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see above that the primary citation here for Eli's blindness is textural authority. Whitta may very well have conceived of Eli as being blind, but in the final product, and through the bulk of the movie, Denzel certainly doesn't play it that way. Vranak (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't go by our opinions since we disagree with how we see it; we have to go with reliable sources. Unless there is a reliable source opposing the phrasing, we use both Whitta's statements and the Sight & Sound review as the source for the statement.MartinezMD (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that controversial: watch the movie. It's very simple, Eli uses his vision throughout it. I can only assume there's some kind of collective autism going on here.Vranak (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can keep your insults to yourself. Find a reliable source to the contrary or all you are doing is wasting our time.MartinezMD (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Touchy touchy. The film itself is all the evidence that matters. Vranak (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinez is right, this issue has been discussed to death, and on WIkipedia while primary sources are good back-up from other sources are fine, and consensus rules. Your concerns and bafflement are not a reason to take out the most obvious twist in the film, which itself is stated in a number of other sources and the script. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. I have to say this though: I feel this article has been dumbed down, stripped bare, and loaded with specious religious undertones. Vranak (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This conversation seems to be long dead, now, but reading through it I noticed there was no mention of clicking. When I first watched the movie, at the beginning something seemed off. But, then, Eli makes some clicking sounds (it was actually the second time he clicks, the first time is just before he shoots the cat). It was at that point I started thinking "Is he blind?" Clicking is used by some blind people to "see" their surroundings when other sounds aren't available (such as scuffing feet, or tapping a cane); this is similar to echo location. Some blind people can do it to varying degrees, but not all. The more skilled ones can describe or identify the objects that are near them (their shape, kind of surface material, or tell you if it is a trash can or a telephone pole). I've seen one blind kid have a nerf bat fight with a seeing kid using echolocation.
 * Throughout the movie he uses clicking (for example, when he is first confronted by the group coming out of the engineer's shop, and when approaching the couple's house), many of the times it is when he is standing and there are no other useful sounds. By the end of the movie, it was no surprise to me that he was blind as I was already looking for signs of blindness early on. Seeing by sound is also why he tends to turn his head toward objects (such as the car); head position (thus the position of both ears) helps in "seeing" objects by sound (most blind people, including the majority that don't "see" by sound, turn their heads in response to a perceived sound).
 * I would suggest someone look for a journal or mag article on echolocation (and/or blindness) in relation to this movie; on occasion, people in a field will comment on movies that touch on their field. I'm sure by now there has been some academic (or some person who works with the blind) who has written a paper on the portrayal of Eli in this movie, as well as the use of echolocation (for some reason, some academics like to do that — maybe it's the excitement that something involving their field has popped into the mass media, or the outrage of a bad portrayal when portrayals go bad). :P
 * — al-Shimoni  (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Eli is only partially Blind
A large study was done after the atomic blasts in japan in WW2 after the surrender, on the effects to victim’s eye sight. Over 70% of the people that indirectly looked at the light were not completely blind. They suffered from Cataracts, and out of those studied over 50% could see during the day- mostly shades of black and shadows / silhouettes of people and objects. Those that survived became very keen to see movement as long as they were in bright light, also heightened since of smell, sound and feeling vibrations. This would explain why Eli never traveled at night and was not totally blinded by a nuclear flash, if he was completely blind- night would have gave him a much larger advantage. You notice he always travels when the sun comes up so he can see silhouettes of people and objects moving. Also when Solara interred his room at Carnegie’s hall she said “it’s bright in here” Eli had all the lights on so he could see anyone entering the room / cell. Also he wears sunglasses because obviously he does not want his cataracts to get worst. If you watch the movie again there is many tells to support that he is only partially blind and had mild to moderate cataracts. You can also see his eyes on the boat to Alcatraz, clearly showing his cataracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.157.132 (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015
The first reference when clicked on goes to the message " Gone The requested resource /website/Classified.nsf/e8ea0df3a881175480256d58003cb570/7366d0d20ceadf94802576a30050da25 is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

2602:306:25CA:6159:1D05:9166:7524:E7A7 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tagged it as a deadlink - we do not remove links as they can often be recovered from the Wayback Machine or other archives - Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016
Fahrenheit 451 

The film owes a significant debt to the 1953 novel by Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451. In the novel Guy Montag escapes from a future dystopian society and eventually makes contact with a group of isolated individuals who have memorised books to save them for the future iteration of mankind.

77.95.194.80 (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited Independent, reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016
Can you please add Erik Olsen to the list of producers. You can check IMDB for reference -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037705/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

thanks

Realmovieproducer (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per Template:Infobox film, executive producers do not go in the infobox. Also see WP:CIO. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And IMDB is not a reliable source. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018
In the first paragraph of plot, change "Carnegie appears to be the only person in his town that is literate. henchmen scour the desolate landscape daily in search of it, but to no avail." to "Carnegie appears to be the only person in his town that is literate. [His] henchmen scour the desolate landscape daily in search of [the book], but to no avail."

I have not seen this movie, and it is unclear what "it" refers to in the current version. I am assuming it means the book, but it is entirely possible it is something else.

Ala132 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    07:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A recent edit altered the clarity of the paragraph. I made a revision. MartinezMD (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)