<Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> @ 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 </Dd> <Dd> @ 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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??? </Dd> <Dd> Chaosdruid (talk) 15: 33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dd> 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) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> @ 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 </Dd> <Dd> @ 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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??? </Dd> <Dd> Chaosdruid (talk) 15: 33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dd> 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) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> @ 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 </Dd> <Dd> @ 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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??? </Dd> <Dd> Chaosdruid (talk) 15: 33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dd> 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) </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> @ 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 </Dd> <Dd> @ 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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 . </Dd> <Dd> 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??? </Dd> <Dd> Chaosdruid (talk) 15: 33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd>

In the book of eli why does everyone wear sunglasses