KNOWING (what it could have been)

Chamber005

Carbonite Member
So, I'm probably the only person on the planet who just randomly remembers this, but as soon as I saw the trailer for this movie I remembered something I read some years ago when Donnie Darko was, by far, the best movie on the racks.

Five years ago a reporter talked with writer/director Richard Kelly (Donnie) about what was supposed to be his 2nd film. (He instead ended up doing Southland Tales).

Here's an excerpt:

Your second film will be “Knowing,” a project you came aboard back in March, 2002. Why the delay?
It’s been delayed four or five times due to budget, distribution, foreign distribution issues, casting issues… It’s seriously harder to get “Knowing” off the ground than it was to get “Donnie Darko” off the ground (laughing). We’re definitely hoping to start shooting the first quarter of 2004.

What’s the biggest factor delaying production?
There’s some legal entanglements involving the ownership of the screenplay and foreign distribution that have contributed significantly to the delay. But I think also that around the studios there’s a reluctance to allow me to do my thing, given the bottom line. If you look at the spreadsheet, “Donnie Darko” I think made $500,000 at the box office. To the head of the studio, that’s not a safe gamble. I’m not a safe gamble because of the way that the first film didn’t perform domestically. I think that ultimately that always does have an affect on your ability to increase your budget on your second film, if your first film wasn’t profitable in its domestic release.

The reason why I’ve been holding out for so long to make “Knowing” the second film is because I really believe it feels, in my gut, exactly what my second film needs to be, and exactly where I want to go as a filmmaker. I would like to go to work on a broader canvas as opposed to a smaller one right now simply because I was given a lot of opportunities in my first film, and I think that I’ve grown a lot over the past three years. I think that there’s a lot more that I’m capable of. To work on a smaller, reduced budget or a smaller canvas right now would feel kind of limiting to what I want to do. That’s why I’ve been holding out for this one for so long.
It’s frustrating and I wish I could have already been in production by now, but I just want to get it right. You don’t want to rush into a situation where we can’t get enough money or we can’t get the right cast. I’m just holding out 'til we get it right.
Do you have your cast in mind?
Yeah. It’s a complicated process given a lot of people are still sort of discovering “Donnie Darko” and getting a handle on who the hell I am, and what I’m capable of. It’s taken a while for people to digest the first film and figure out what I’m going to do next, and how this was going to play itself out (laughing).

What was it about “Knowing” that made you so hot about making it your second project?
I see it as being a very commercial film but at the same time, one that will allow me to tell a story in just, I hope, as a provocative way that I did with “Donnie Darko.” Ultimately it’s a film that I hope will be able to reach a wider audience, but at the same time people won’t be screaming, “Sell out!” (laughing) They’ll feel like it’s an expansion of that kind of filmmaking that I hope to continue to do, and that I began to do with “Darko.” I’m really excited to work on a bigger canvas.

“Knowing” is a rewrite you did of Ryne Pearson’s work?
I’ve done about 30 rewrites. The script’s been rewritten constantly, it’s evolving constantly. It’s becoming something really specific in my mind. Ultimately, any film that I make won’t match the screenplay to a ‘T’ because things get adjusted. It’s been constantly adjusted, but it’s down to the point where I know exactly what it is. I’m more excited about it now than I think I’ve ever been.

How close is the 30th rewrite to the original script?
It’s evolved. I think there’s been different versions of the script floating around, but I think it’s evolved significantly. Ryne Pearson really came up with an amazing story. It hit me. I never thought I’d end up directing a film based on someone else’s source material or someone else’s story, but Ryne just created an incredible story. It felt like it had this classic quality to it. I hope to be able to do justice to his story. Hopefully my interpretation of it will do justice to what he came up with.

Is the basic premise still the discovery of a time capsule?
Yes, but I can’t go into any specific details because I’d probably get in trouble. But the film, it does involve the discovery of a time capsule. That’s all I can say (laughing)

Ah, what could have been...
 
"Dark City" was about 4000 times better than "Donnie Darko", so I'd put Alex Proyas on the job over Richard Kelly any day of the week. :)

That being said, reaction to "Knowing" is not that strong. Ah well.
 
"Dark City" was about 4000 times better than "Donnie Darko", so I'd put Alex Proyas on the job over Richard Kelly any day of the week. :)

That being said, reaction to "Knowing" is not that strong. Ah well.

RT is at 23 percent...But Ebert somehow gave it 4 stars and said it was one of the best sci-fi movies ever. He was a big fan of Dark City, too. Then again, he gave Watchmen four stars, and famously gave Die Hard two stars.
 
I saw it.

I'm still not sure what to think. I loved parts of it and other parts had me rolling my eyes.
The acting was so-so as well.

I was quite intrigued by it but the ending threw me a bit. It didn't add up for me.
I'll tell you one thing though, it did create quite the discussion after the film. :)

MAH
 
My main interest in going to see knowing was that it was the first film to use regular working models of the Red, not prototypes for 100% of the movie. I went to a theatre that wasn't using digital projection but a filmout print.

It looked a hair softer than the footage I'm normally used to getting myself, which I attribute to the filmout, but overall it looked excellent. Skintones were great and the night footage was phenomenal.

I found the story fell down about 2/3 of the way through. How many, "the spaceship arrives and people get taken away", ending variations are we going to keep getting from Hollywood, (Close Encounters, CoCoon, Starman)?
 
Saw it yesterday. The ending wasn't even a shock for me. I called aliens the second I saw the trailer. The acting was so-so, I think Cage's performance was one of the only things holding the movie together actually, which was a shock! I did like the biblical references thrown in throughout, but the average movie-goer wouldn't understand half of them, so that could have been a lot better.

Overall, IMO, it was a great idea, with some stunning visuals and one of the best sequence shots I've seen in a long time, but it left something to be desired.
 
Man, what the hell happened to Alex Proyas? This was a fairly pedestrian thriller shot in a fairly pedestrian way. Other than a few minor flourishes here and there there is nothing on par with Dark City. The story started off kind of slow and obvious, then got better as it went along, then fell off the rails toward the end. Nic Cage was alternately good and kind of terrible in moments. He needs to stop taking these boring everyman roles and go back to doing characters with the Coens and David Lynch...The red footage did look great, in no way distinguishable from film. Colors seemed desaturated but I think that was a stylistic choice done in grading.
 
How many, "the spaceship arrives and people get taken away", ending variations are we going to keep getting from Hollywood, (Close Encounters, CoCoon, Starman)?

Yes, but you must admit, none of those other movies ended quite like Knowing. Can you imagine what a downer Cocoon would have been if it had?

:)
 
Holy Crap.

Contrived
Predictable
Overblown
3 things I have easily forgiven in other films that actually enabled me to give a crap about anyone or anything that was happening.

The two coolest parts of this movie were the house they lived in, and seeing the RED logo at the end.

Knowing took the easy way out at nearly every opportunity. There were definitely some cool looking shots and solid concepts. But this film was very disappointing.
 
The original screenwriter posts on another forum and he stated he was happy with the film, he was however totally rewritten, from what I could tell, his version was simpler. I asked him if his concept included just the numbers on that paper, he stated it was numbers and letters, which I think would have been so much better.

He sold the script I believe he stated 9 years ago. He mentioned too, you may sell a script and never see it produced, it's just the way Hollywood works.

The rewrite was MAJOR so I am wondering, too, what could have been.
 
Simpler would have been better. There were way too many things that seemed to be thrown in there to make it more "interesting" that were either unnecessary, didn't pay off well, or just didn't make sense.

I really don't understand why this particular film is garnering rave reviews from so many sources. I lost track of how many times I looked at my phone to check the time.
 
Saw this last night (bad idea, because I was DEAD tired). I agree it had it's moments. Unfortunately my heart sank when I saw that plane crash. I live near Buffalo where that plane went down and I was just hoping nobody related to the victims was in that theater or saw this film (although I'm sure at least 1 did). I don't want to know what they felt when that happened.

Acting was on and times, WAY off at times. Cage did a good job towards the end, where I felt his acting was strongest. His son really bothered me most of the time, he sounded like he was reading. Some of the CG was poor and a shot after the subway when the street is shown, there is a firetruck right in the center of the screen that doesn't match the background in color or grain structure, and it was tracked improperly so it shifted around once it hit the bottom of frame. How FX people miss this I'll never know.

I caught all the biblical references and started seeing where the film would end up pretty early on. One thing I did love was the shot of the ship leaving earth where all of a sudden they revealed more than one. Up until that point no matter what I figured out I thought they were the only ones (naming both kids Adam and Eve would've been a bit much but might have helped the audience that didn't make the connection). Either way it is a forgettable film.

Am I the only one that found some of the disasters a bit excessive? How many minutes do you really need to see people being burned alive or ran over by a subway? Normally that stuff wouldn't bug me but it felt just a hair too long.
 
I went to see it because it was a Red movie printed to film, and I thought it looked much cleaner than a "normal" film. Totally acceptable, and with a talented cinematographer it looks great, of course.

I'm a sucker for these kind of movies, so I liked it, and still felt like the end was a little cheesy, but one thing that I thought was great was the Music.. oh yeah, and everyone getting vaporized. Ha ha!

I kept asking myself, why on EARTH would you spend 10's or 100's of millions on talent and crew and everything, and shoot on RED? Not that it's a bad camera or anything, but it surely wasn't a budgetary thing, was it? To me, film is the ultimate, and if I had enough money for Nicholas Cage, then surely I have enough for film? The cost savings by shooting on Red seem insignificant by comparison.

Does anyone know why they decided to shoot on RED?
 
I'm starting to think that "film grain' is overated. I loved how "clean" looking this filmed turned out to be without looking anywhere like video. I agree the ending was cheesy....but I enjoyed every bit of it. I did look at my watch a couple of times...but not because I was taken out of the story (i had to be somewhere)...it was then i realized...DANG THIS IS LONG. I thought th CG was excellent. I had forgot until halfway through that this was not film (even though I knew about it beforehand). Nothing stood out as being different.....other than....it was just so clean looking. As of lately (depending on where in the theater you sit) I have been finding the grain in actual film to be a bit distracting at times.
 
And Southland Tales is one of the worst movies ever made . . . :huh:


Lots of people think Southland Tales was awful, but it actually wasn't. The problem was that you couldn't view it as a stand-alone film. You had to read the previous three parts to actually understand the plot.

But regardless, the short version is that The Rock and Stiffler are in an alternate dimension throughout the movie. The Rock's counterpart died at the beginning while Stiffler's counterpart was, obviously, alive until the two counterparts met. Maybe give the movie a second watch with the understanding that you're in an alternate dimension the entire time. You're given an understanding of who all these people are in their alternate dimensions throughout the film.

Nothing at all wrong with the script or the production, it just had a little too much going on.

And I don't know if Dark City was better than Donnie Darko. They're completely different films. I would put Molholland Drive and Donnie Darko in a similar category (at least the theatrical release of DD. The Director's Cut misses the mark -- but the commentary with Kevin Smith was worth the purchase).

I adore Dark City, but that centered on the notion of a soul -- much more of the Matrix brood; Donnie Darko centers on mental illness and how they could pertain to our deepest understandings of fate and purpose.

But hey, I think a pretty solid weekend of movies would be:

THE MATRIX
DARK CITY
WAKING LIFE
MULHOLLAND DRIVE
DONNIE DARKO

I own and love them all.
 
Back
Top