You are welcome, buddy, Need anything else ruined for you? Just give it to us. You remember your favourite cartoon from childhood? Yeah? Well, it wasn’t any good. That’s right. Super-models? They fart and belch, like anybody else.
It wasn’t a horrid movie but it won’t be a dvd buy anytime soon. The book wasn’t much better either. And I almost worship Sagan.
That’s true. I guess the way I saw it is eventually the evidence comes down in her favor, but only after she’s “learned a lesson” about the importance of faith.
Only, she wasn’t the one who needed to learn the lesson, in my opinion.
Seemed to me that the scientific method can appear similiar to faith, at a very early stage of fact-gathering, especially if the researcher is cut off from the source of her information, as Foster was. She’d love to repeat the experiment, and try to falsify it, but she is unable to, for reasons beyond her control.
That “beyond her control” stuff also applies to **Shayna’**s objection: she might have been on the verge of asking her question when her “dad” cuts off and sends her back home. The point being that there are questions you might like to ask your teachers, but if they decided you need to some other stuff first, or just to shut up for a while, they probably won’t get asked or answered just yet.
And as to my earlier point about “discrimination against atheists,” it just seemed on the money to me how the Skerritt character manipulates the system to his advantage, disqualifying Foster from a scientific mission she’s supremely qualified for by appealing (possibly falsely) to a board of non-scientific judges. It would have been even better, IMO, if he had clearly been self-identified as a non-beiever himself. Anyone remember if the book IDed him on religious faith?
LOL! Yeah, I guess I’ve been whooshed. 
Exactly. And what scientist hasn’t dreamed of being the one to discover something that turns the world on its ear?
That’s what I love about his character. He’s more open to Ellie’s point of view than she is to his when they first meet. I’ve always found it interesting that she is so drawn to and fascinated by him. I think he’s a puzzle to her–one she can’t help but try to figure out.
I think Sagan was trying to portray a range of beliefs and views. I’m not particularly religious, but I also wouldn’t call myself an atheist. When I first started studying evolution I would have told you I was an atheist. But somewhere along the line in grad school, I realized I was actually agnostic, and that I am curious about things that I don’t think science can touch.
I think it’s quite possible for science and religion to co-exist, and I think the evolution vs. creationism debate has been needlessly polarizing. The debate is generally dominated by people who are at the extreme position of either side. However, there are plenty of people in the sciences who hold religious beliefs, and there are plenty of people who are religious who aren’t against science at all. I think that’s at the heart of what Sagan was attempting to explore.
After all, what draws people to science but a wonder and curiosity about the world and how it works and why it came to be this way and where is it headed and, and . . .
Well, doesn’t religion explore the very same questions, just from a different perspective?
That’s where I find brilliance in this movie, and I have great respect that Sagan, as a scientist, was willing to put himself out there to explore such a topic. It shows a basic intellectual honesty and genuine fascination with both truth and humanity.
In addition to that, I like that he takes on the politics of science. By the time I left grad school, I was discouraged about academic freedom and dismayed by how much politics can influence scientific inquiry. Now that I’m older, I understand that I was naive going in to grad school, and I’m not so cynical about it. But on my way out of grad school, I remember being pretty bitter. So when Ellie finds herself being shoved out of the project, and Hadden steps in with his money and influence to bring her back in, that really spoke to some of my own frustrations and understanding of science.
Maybe we just have better taste than most people? 
Speaking as a theist who gave the movie a tepid thumbs up…
The idea that Tom Skerritt would be given the assignment because he believed in God is just plain STUPID!
Does anybody know whether Neil Armstrong believed in God? Did anybody ask?
As for the supposedly respectful treatment given to religion, EVERY believer portrayed in the movie is either a dangerous, homicidal maniac (Jake Busey) or a smarmy phony (Rob Lowe, Tom Skerritt).
The ending was also a little silly. The idea that “if there’s no other intelligent life out there, it’s an awful waste of space” makes NO sense at all, from an atheistic standpoint. “Waste” makes sense only if there’s a creator. If one believes that the universe is random and that life is a fluke, then why SHOULDN"T there be billions and billions of uninhabited solar systems? It’s only if there IS a God that you’d be inclined to wonder why he put one and only one intelligent species in a universe so vast they could never, ever hope to see 99.999% of it.
Well, that was kinda the idea that I took from it: that Ellie was dumped because there were public hearings to select the astronaut, during which all sorts of public posturing was possible and perhaps inevitable, the idea being that if the Apollo astronauts (or anyone else: corporate execs, athletes, kindergarten teachers) had to pass through a public grilling by government officials, they would probably impose the same religious test that they had to pass to get elected (or appointed) and thus weed out all the non-believers unwilling to lie about their beliefs.
I happen to think that’s a silly concept in itself.
When were there ever public hearings to choose American astronauts or Soviet cosmonauts? Where were the public committee meetings in which Gus Grissom and Wally Schirra had to persuade America that they were religious enough to be good astronauts?
There never WERE any such hearings, even at a time when America was a much more Christian nation than it is now. And there never WOULD be such hearings, because even the most devout Christian would agree that’s a stupid way to pick pilots and space explorers!
One other thing: in the movie, at least, the public hearings at which Skerritt and Foster were grilled on religious beliefs were not conducted by the U.S. government. They were INTERNATIONAL hearings, which makes the religious litmus test even LESS plausible.
For the sake of drama, I’ll pretend that the U.S. is a nation of Christian demagogues who’d give the wrong person an important job solely because he professed (probably falsely) to believe in God.
But the Chinese wouldn’t give a flip about Skerritt’s religious beliefs, or lack of same. Nor would the Russians, the Japanese, nor most Western Europeans. And the Muslim world would be no happier with a Christian “Crusader” infidel than with a non-believer.
So, how would Skerritt’s convenient profession of faith help him before a secular, international panel? And heck, what was a clergyman like Matthew McConnaughey doing on such a panel in the first place?
I think they had Angela Bassett explain why this whole program was being dominated by the U.S. (more investment, we discovered the signal, etc.). It was fictional, so that’s reason enough for why this was how the selection process worked as it did here, but it was constructed to make a point about other processes–Presidential elections in the US–where utterly irrelevant religious tests are introduced (by those who feel that piety should be a requirement to serving) in order to exclude qualified atheists. I think that was Sagan’s point in including this plot point in his story, and I appreciated it.
All the more reason not to include footage of Bill Clinton as the incumbent President, then. It was not an administration in which a religious test would be irrelevantly imposed for such a high-profile scientific post.
Whom to send was a worldwide decision. It wouldn’t have made any difference who the American president was. In any case, I liked the movie for the most part. And I’m among those who were astounded by the mirror scene.
At the end, didn’t Snidely Whiplash (i.e. the James Woods character) try to imply that the whole message thing was a hoax? I remembering wondering how he pulled that off, since dozens of observatories had been involved in receiving the message and there couldn’t possibly be any doubt that it was coming from Vega, what with high-school-level trigonometry and all.
Ditto - I’ve watched it several times and can’t work out how it was done. Anyone know?
It’s been a while since I’ve seen it. What was the mirror scene?
See the link at post 19.
Oh, right. Thanks. That was pretty cool.
IIRC, Palmer Joss was NOT a clergyman, of any kind. He refers to himself (while a young, hot questioner who wants to sleep with Ellie) as “a man of the cloth, without the cloth.” He is not ordained- he is a traveling salesman with a mishmash of theist “teachings” and “values” but does carry a bible, so I guess he is nominally Christian but is not a priest, minister or pastor.
He’s referred to as “Father Joss” early on, which is when he tells Ellie he’s defrocked, or whatever the term is that means “I’m available for immediate recreational hot monkey lovin’.”
Ach there’s far too much in this thread huffing and puffing about how things would work out in the real world.
The book, and hence the film, is about Eleanor Arroway and her loneliness, disconnection and obsession. The book has a better ending for Ellie, but the film isn’t too bad either.