12 Monkeys: the "puke factor"
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
I visited a bunch of websites looking for info on Richard Preston's
book _The_ _Hot_ _Zone_. Preston refers to the "puke factor" as
the degree of nuasia that a person experiences when they realize
that they have been exposed to a dangerous virus. Mostly, it's
associated with accidents. The movie Outbreak made reference to
the puke factor (sort of) when Major Salt is returning from his
first mission to an Ebola area. Dustin Hoffman told his team
that he didn't want any of them throwing up when they saw the
disease victims.
What I want to know is what was the "puke factor" of the virus
in 12 Monkeys? Is this a virus that kills like Ebola? Most
people feel sick with the plain old influenza bug. If a virus
kills you, it's bound to be awefully painful. Why would Dr. Peters
expose himself to a virus that kills like Ebola? No one could
be so stupid and Dr. Peters did not appear to be stupid.
I reckon that no one saw a Canadian film called Plague (1978).
In that movie, a bio-engineered plague escapes from a lab because the
scientists we not given the lab that they needed for their
research and they broke the rules and went ahead with their experiment
anyway in a less-than-safe lab. There is a power outage at the wrong
moment and the virus escapes the simple negative air pressure hood and
infects one of the researchers. She dies screaming. They think
things are OK, but the virus has gone out a vent and infected a
bird which flies to a play-ground and dies. Some children handle
the sick bird. They die screaming. Some doctors treat the
children and one leaves for London with her family becuase everyone
in Toronto is beginning to die screaming. There's one lady who is
naturally immune who infects a sandwich shop worker and everyone
who eats a sandwich from the shop dies screaming. The Canadian
Army surrounds Toronto and shots people who are trying to escape.
Eventually, the outbreak ends with only a few thousand dead.
The movie begins and ends with disclaimer that the producers don't
want to alarm anyone and that none of this would never actually
happen.
Plague would make a good movie to show along with Night of the Living
Dead.
Alberto Alonso Espel
Hi!!
I would like to know more about this canadian movie. Any feedback??
If you liked 12 Monkeys or Outbreak ( I like very much this film. When
I saw it, I had a car accident when I left the cinema. I do not know
if the virus had something to do with it (o:), do not miss one of its
best predeccessors The Andromeda Strain (1971) directed by John (?)
Wise. Most action happens inside a lab, but I find it more frightening
than Outbreak.
Regards,
Alberto A. Espel
aes...@lander.es
Robin Pen
Alberto Alonso Espel (aes...@lander.es) wrote:
[12 Monkeys or Outbreak...]
: do not miss one of its
: best predeccessors The Andromeda Strain (1971) directed by John (?)
: Wise. Most action happens inside a lab, but I find it more frightening
: than Outbreak.
Robert Wise who also directed Day the Earth Stood Still and Star Trek:
The Motion Picture, and they make an interesting trilogy from a
stylistics point of view. Andromeda Strain is an excellent movie which
comes from the pen of Michael Crichton. Interesting that Crichton went
from Andromeda Strain, Westworld & Terminal Man to Jurassic Park and
Twister. What hollywood does to ya.
Robin
robi...@iinet.net.au
PJK
In article <529sb3$r...@opera.iinet.net.au>,
on 25 Sep 1996 07:54:11 +0800,
But by way of The Great Train Robbery which was both a great book and movie.
Pjk
Concrete Skull
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
> If a virus
> kills you, it's bound to be awefully painful. Why would Dr. Peters
> expose himself to a virus that kills like Ebola? No one could
> be so stupid and Dr. Peters did not appear to be stupid.
He's just very committed to his cause, willing to die for it. He's got
two weeks (at least) before he's toast...he might even survive, but
that's irrelevant.
All he's got to do is spread the virus to each of his destinations, then
he's completed his mission. He's got to know he's most likely going to
die anyway. He could either commit suicide (painlessly) before The End,
or, more likely, deal with it, just to enjoy the results as he sees the
world in chaos.
But no matter what he chooses to do, I don't think it's a matter of
stupidity...he's just a nut.
vph
Randal Morris
True, but also consider that Peters was a research virologist, among the
most talented in his time. Whose to say he had not already developed
and taken an antidote for the virus?
Remember, he was an apocalypse nut, so that would lead me to assume that
he would definitely want to be around to see the world go to shit with
his own eyes. I could not imagine someone having such a definitvely
evil plan for world destruction, and risking the chance of not seeing it
in motion, and its aftermath.
This is what I love about this movie: makes you think.
--Ranman
-damn Netscape
Thomas
I`m not a professor in virology, but I do know one thing for sure;
finding antidotes is a very long prosess. First: how long have thousands
of researchers world-wide tried to find an antidote for HIV? At least 15
years isn`t it? Now, how many pharmacists do you know carry this
antidote? The doctor in 12 monkeys was alone and had a full-time job on
the top. No way he could have found an antidote to the virus.
Torbjørn Solbakken
Ontario Travel Bureau
Don't you think that if he had helped create the virus, he would have had
a much easier time making the antidote?
Sidewalk
Rod Pennington
Thomas wrote:
>
> I`m not a professor in virology, but I do know one thing for sure;
> finding antidotes is a very long prosess. First: how long have thousands
> of researchers world-wide tried to find an antidote for HIV? At least 15
> years isn`t it? Now, how many pharmacists do you know carry this
> antidote? The doctor in 12 monkeys was alone and had a full-time job on
> the top. No way he could have found an antidote to the virus.
I have a pretty good working knowledge of virology (I used to work with
plant viruses) and you are absolutely correct regarding the time
required to come up with antidotes. For many (most?) viral infections,
there isn't any antidote at all. Bacteria have a weak link, that is
a cell wall that is unlike anything in our own bodies. Thus we can
attact it without necessarily attacking our own cellular structures
and machinery. Viruses are simpler and blend into our own cellular
machinery more intimately. Makes them harder to attack.
I just saw 12 Monkeys for the first time a couple of nights ago and I
thought it was great. I don't remember it being implied that the C.
Plummer character had developed an antidote (of course I miss stuff in
movies all the time).
This brings to mind "Outbreak", the worst "starts off realistically
but turns to pure fantasy" movie of recent memory. The movie had a
great look/mood/feel at the beginning, then we're treated to a couple
of scientists curing the Ebola virus (or something like it) in a matter
of hours. I wouldn't necessarily mind such a flight of fantasy if they
hadn't first sucked me in to expecting realism.
Rod
> Torbjørn Solbakken
ing...@earthlink.net
Sorry to bust into the middle of this (well, the end), but I just saw
TM and these links seemed sort of fresh. IMO he had an antidote, but
that's kind of irrelevant. What I was wondering, since I have returned
the video, is whether anyone could tell me positively whether or not
Dr. Peters (I'm guessing to the best of my recall that this was the
name of the ponytail virologist with the thing for Railey) was one of
the doctors from the future prison.
>On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
>> If a virus
>> kills you, it's bound to be awefully painful. Why would Dr. Peters
>> expose himself to a virus that kills like Ebola? No one could
>> be so stupid and Dr. Peters did not appear to be stupid.
Dan Bongard
Thomas (thom...@ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: I`m not a professor in virology, but I do know one thing for sure;
: finding antidotes is a very long prosess. First: how long have thousands
: of researchers world-wide tried to find an antidote for HIV? At least 15
: years isn`t it? Now, how many pharmacists do you know carry this
: antidote? The doctor in 12 monkeys was alone and had a full-time job on
: the top. No way he could have found an antidote to the virus.
First off, most of the work in finding a cure for a disease lies in
figuring out what it does to the body, how it does it, and how it
reproduces. Naturally if you engineered the virus yourself you would
know these things.
Secondly, it was my impression that the Virus was NOT a personal
project of the one 'crazy' scientist. When the Army of the 12 Monkeys
kidnaps the old scientist he makes a remark that they can't do
anything with him because "I've taken myself out of the loop. I
don't have access to the virus." Which implies that the virus was
being developed by a team, not a lone scientist.
Of course this implies, to me, that they still didn't know what the
cure was, because presumably they would have given the rest of humanity
the cure.
My vote goes for: The guy was crazy, so he didn't mind dying to
further his apocalyptic dreams.
-- Dan
Concrete Skull
On 27 Sep 1996, Thomas say:
> The doctor in 12 monkeys was alone and had a full-time job on
> the top. No way he could have found an antidote to the virus.
I'm no virologist, either, but if he actually engineered the virus in
their labs, he might have been simultaneously engineering the antidote.
Then again, maybe not.
I don't think it matters much to the film either way, tho.
vph
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996 00:57:17 GMT,
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:First off, most of the work in finding a cure for a disease lies in
:figuring out what it does to the body, how it does it, and how it
:reproduces. Naturally if you engineered the virus yourself you would
:know these things.
The script is very uninformative about the nature of the virus
and its orgin. We know that Dr. Goines reacted to Dr. Railly's
phone call with the words (to Dr. Peters) "due to the nature of our
work..." and Dr. Peters nods and says that he will inform two
other scientists. It is reasonable to interpret this as indicating
that Dr. Goines is the head a team of virologists and/or genetic
engineers working on virii of the danger-level of Ebola.
1. They may be working on emerging virii like Hanta and Ebola and
such. If so, then the likelyhood of a "cure" is slender.
2. They may be working on bio-engineering new organisms with useful
properties. If so, then the likelihood of a "cure" is much greater.
What we don't know is whether this laboratory is doing military
research. I think that chemical weapons are being destroyed under
a treaty (Masstricht?). I don't know if bilogical weapons are
OK still or not. By any means, research can continue even if making
the weapon is banned by treaty.
Supposing the first case, then the virus was discovered in the
wild and it is already on the loose. Supposing the second case,
then the only sensible bio-weapons will be the ones that there
is a cure for.
Logic aside, this is a fantasy film and there can always be a Baron
von Frankenstien or that Delambre family who was chronically building
teleportation devices that put fly's heads on people. You could
fill in the blanks in the script by saying that its a typical case
of a mad scientist. Dr. Peters may have been trying to turn
the whole human race into Buddy Love (The Nutty Professor).
Certainly, if Terry Gilliam (or is it the producers?) had cast
John Lithgow as the sample case guy, then we would be better
informed.
:Secondly, it was my impression that the Virus was NOT a personal
:project of the one 'crazy' scientist. When the Army of the 12 Monkeys
:kidnaps the old scientist he makes a remark that they can't do
:anything with him because "I've taken myself out of the loop. I
:don't have access to the virus." Which implies that the virus was
:being developed by a team, not a lone scientist.
To be sure. Now for my bombshell: I think that Dr. Peters may
very well be innocent of any evil. Dr. Peters is Dr. Goines
chief of staff or chief hunchback or whatever. When Jeffery
makes reference in Baltimore 1990 that he is contacting "certain
underlings" who will contact his father. Dr. Peters might be
one of those underlings. Perhaps the Baltimore hospital does
not believe that Jeffery is who he claims to be. Or another
possibility is that Dr. Peters is close enough to Dr. Goines to
have been told about Jeffery and that Dr. Peters knew that
Dr. Railly was Jeffery's psychiatrist in 1990.
What I just said would explain how Dr. Peters would be attending
Dr. Railly's lecture and book signing. Dr. Peters may even have
bought a book and approached Dr. Railly with his "Chicken Little"
speech just as an opportunity to make social contact with an
attractive single woman. Dr. Peter's little speech about "aren't
the alarmists the sane ones and the complacent ones the true
lunatics?" -- that speech is not an indication of any irrational
thought process. Sure, the "save the whales" crowd and the "animal
rights" crowd seem like nuts but they are not. People who stand
on street-corners and shout "REPENT! THE END IS NEAR!" are more
likely to be delusional psychotics.
So we can construct a scenario in which Dr. Peters is present at
the Baltimore 1996 lecture as a rational person and also we can
interpret his speech and behaviour as rational. The next scene
with Dr. Peters is where he accepts the order to "upgrade security".
Sure, watching that scene you'd think it was Donald Sutherland
and Morgan Freeman a.l.a. Outbreak ("Sir, we can throw them a
life-line").
The final scene with Dr. Peters involves an incredible coincidence.
Just as Judy Simmons (Dr. Railly -- note that Judy is the real name of
the body double in Vertigo)... just as Judy/Dr. Railly is paying for
her ticket to Key West, who should be standing next to her? Dr. Peters!
Come one folks! Admit that the screen writers have stretched things.
What an stroke of fortune! Now Dr. Railly reads the newspaper and
intuitively reasons that Dr. Peters, being an assistant to a
world renowned virologist, must be the villan. Why does she think
that the virus was released by evil people? A naturally occuring
virus could have been just as likely or else Dr. Peters may have
accidently infected himself. Dr. Railly is behaving like an
irrational paranoid at this point.
And remember that ONLY Dr. Railly knows that Dr. Peters is there
in the airport, so don't claim that the scientists (of 2035) knew
about Dr. Peters.
The penultimate scene with Dr. Peters is the security checkpoint.
Does a virus releasing terrorist fill out forms for his Doomsday
Bug? A more reasonable interpretation is to accept Dr. Peters
statements that he is going on business to collect samples of
emerging virii at such places as they occur -- Kinshasha for
Ebola and China for the lastest influenza bug that the pigs
and ducks have for the human race.
When the nosy inspector looks at the vials and says "but they're
empty!", Dr. Peters plays a little joke to the effect that they
contain air -- they aren't empty -- they aren't a vacuum. That
little bit of game-playing may be a trait of Dr. Peters.
I'm not convinced that Dr. Peters was running off to destroy
the human race so that the planet could be safe for rain forests.
:Of course this implies, to me, that they still didn't know what the
:cure was, because presumably they would have given the rest of humanity
:the cure.
In the companion book, Cole sees a newspaper clipping on the wall
with Dr. Cole's face and the headline: "Scientist says it's too late
for cure". Apparently the Hitchcock Festival was still ballyhooed
on the marquee of the movie theatre when Cole made his first
exploration of the surface. That would mean that Philadelphia
died screaming in short order after Cole and Dr. Railly spent
the night there.
So the "to late for cure" may imply that Dr. Goines has a cure
but it's too late to use it now. Maybe they don't have enough
or maybe it's like a flu shot that people need before being exposed
to the live virus.
:My vote goes for: The guy was crazy, so he didn't mind dying to
:further his apocalyptic dreams.
This is a Terry Gilliam fantasy, so anything could be right.
Chris Petersen
ing...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> What I was wondering, since I have returned
> the video, is whether anyone could tell me positively whether or not
> Dr. Peters (I'm guessing to the best of my recall that this was the
> name of the ponytail virologist with the thing for Railey) was one of
> the doctors from the future prison.
No. He wasn't (isn't? will not be?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Maverick Petersen http://www.spies.com/bungee
Bungee Enthusiast ._o bun...@3do.com
/ //\.
The 3DO Company ' \>> | o_.
600 Galveston \\ ' ./\\ \
Redwood City, CA 94063 | <</ `
415-261-3406 ` //
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerthein Boersma
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Come one folks! Admit that the screen writers have stretched things.
>What an stroke of fortune! Now Dr. Railly reads the newspaper and
>intuitively reasons that Dr. Peters, being an assistant to a
>world renowned virologist, must be the villan. Why does she think
>that the virus was released by evil people? A naturally occuring
>virus could have been just as likely or else Dr. Peters may have
>accidently infected himself. Dr. Railly is behaving like an
>irrational paranoid at this point.
Sure, I'll admit it. Coincindence is a part of virtually every movie I
know, so I don't see this as a flaw. Yes, she is behaving as an
irrational paranoid (who wouldn't be), but she happens to be *right*.
It doesn't matter Railly happens to be right because it's futile
anyway: nothing is ruined by this revelation.
<snipped: Peters didn't do it!>
I'm pretty sure everyone who was involved with this movie (screenplay
writers, Gilliam, Morse...) intended that 'Peters did it'. So unlike
the great "Bladerunner: was Deckard a replicant?" debate, this is
pointless.
>:My vote goes for: The guy was crazy, so he didn't mind dying to
>:further his apocalyptic dreams.
>This is a Terry Gilliam fantasy, so anything could be right.
Yes, I'll admit it: it is a bit of a Terry Gilliam fantasy. But it's a
great one. Great story, thought-provoking indeed.. great acting.. that
Terry Gilliam style that I just happen to like, the list goes on.
You know lots of details about this movie, you've obviously seen it
more than once. Why so, if you didn't like it? Don't nit-pick every
little flaw in this movie: on the whole, it is one of the most
intelligent sci-fi pictures I've seen in years. In that light (and I'm
sure I've said this before) it seems somewhat ungrateful to critize it
so relentlessly.
- Gerthein
-----------------------
gert...@worldaccess.nl
-----------------------
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 07:57:52 GMT,
gert...@worldaccess.nl (Gerthein Boersma)
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
:>Come one folks! Admit that the screen writers have stretched things.
:>What an stroke of fortune! Now Dr. Railly reads the newspaper and
:>intuitively reasons that Dr. Peters, being an assistant to a
:>world renowned virologist, must be the villan. Why does she think
:>that the virus was released by evil people? A naturally occuring
:>virus could have been just as likely or else Dr. Peters may have
:>accidently infected himself. Dr. Railly is behaving like an
:>irrational paranoid at this point.
:Sure, I'll admit it. Coincindence is a part of virtually every movie I
:know, so I don't see this as a flaw.
Unfortunately, coincidence is overused in movies -- probably since
the last twenty years. A coincidence is used as a short-cut by
screenwriters to jump over the hard work of developing and unfolding
a plot. FRankly, I thought it stunk when the ship's captain stumbled
into Sam Spade's office with the Maltese Falcon. It was obvious that
the screen-writer didn't want to use up time showing the captain
escaping with the falcon and the circumstances that brought him to
Sam Spade.
These coincidences are tiresome. Where's the killer? Looking around
the crowd -- there he is! How convenient. How phony.
: Yes, she is behaving as an
:irrational paranoid (who wouldn't be), but she happens to be *right*.
You see, I disagree on that point. I have no reason to believe that
Dr. Peters is an evil-doer. If Terry Gilliam and the Peoples had
intended me to believe that, then they should have provided adequite
substantiation in the plot and through the action and the dialogue.
The scientists of 2035 have information that they claim is the
order or appearance of the disease throughout the world. That
disease outbreak pattern matches Dr. Peters' travel iternary.
Still, there can be explanations and objections that exculpate
Dr. Peters of any crime:
1. Perhaps Dr. Peters has become accidently infected in his
laboratory. The movie Outbreak sent shivers down my spine as
I watched various bio-harazrd lab workers jab themselves, tear
their "moon suits" and place their hands in spinning centrifuges
of tainted blood.
2. For a clear pattern of plague outbreak to be documented, it
is necessary for a stable surviellance staff (the US CDC, for
example) to be in place. If the disease spreads and kills
too rapidly, then social order breaks down and no information
can be gather. A too rapid spread of disease brings anarchy.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the airport security
inspector is the first case. Dr. Peters is on an eight hour
flight to San Fransisco where the next outbreak occurs. Assuming
that he does not infect anyone on the airplane then the second
infected person will be someone in San Fransisco while Dr. Peters
is wating for his flight to New Orleans. If he waits one day and
if the disease shows symptoms in 24 hours, then perhaps the
Sna Fransciso outbreak will be recorded as a distinct occurance.
If Dr. Peters travels with only two hours stop over in San Franscisco
and New Orleans, then the plaque will appear to break out simultaneously
in Philadelphia, San Francisco and New Orleans. But still, Dr. Peters
must travel rapidly enough that he can complete an exhaustive iternary
before his own (assumed) death.
I hope people are taking in what I'm getting at. It's like some old
movie I saw where a easy explantion of the crime is rejected becuase
it's "too perfect".
:It doesn't matter Railly happens to be right because it's futile
:anyway: nothing is ruined by this revelation.
:<snipped: Peters didn't do it!>
:I'm pretty sure everyone who was involved with this movie (screenplay
:writers, Gilliam, Morse...) intended that 'Peters did it'. So unlike
:the great "Bladerunner: was Deckard a replicant?" debate, this is
:pointless.
Why is it pointless? What evidence do you have in favor of Dr. Peters'
guilt?
:>:My vote goes for: The guy was crazy, so he didn't mind dying to
:>:further his apocalyptic dreams.
:>This is a Terry Gilliam fantasy, so anything could be right.
:Yes, I'll admit it: it is a bit of a Terry Gilliam fantasy.
Was that intended as ironic understatement? This isn't Bridge Over
the River Kwai or any other dramatic retelling of historic fact!
This isn't even Casablanca where a murder aboard a train and
a corrupt police chief is a believable fiction. We're talking
about a movie on a par with David Cronenberg's The Fly.
: But it's a
:great one. Great story, thought-provoking indeed.. great acting.. that
:Terry Gilliam style that I just happen to like, the list goes on.
:You know lots of details about this movie, you've obviously seen it
:more than once. Why so, if you didn't like it? Don't nit-pick every
:little flaw in this movie: on the whole, it is one of the most
:intelligent sci-fi pictures I've seen in years. In that light (and I'm
:sure I've said this before) it seems somewhat ungrateful to critize it
:so relentlessly.
Is there a newsgroup alt.praise.uncritical.terry-gilliam? I bemoan
the fact that Twelve Monkeys is probably one of the most intelligent
movies that I've seen in the past year. That is a sad statement
about the knucklehead movies that Hollywood has been cranking out.
Even a film like Mulholland Falls had idiotic scenes where a beach
cottage is destroyed by a large caliber truck mounted machine gun.
I'm sorry if you think I'm trashing your favorite movie for some
perverse reason -- as if I was trying to incite a reaction. It's
just that the plot has flaws and people all over the world are
asking questions about "who or what is that voice which calls
James Cole by the name of Bob?". There are a lot of important
plot details that are left unanswered and that's why it's worth
the time to toss out alternative explanations.
I don't think there will ever be a consensus reality of this
movie. The raspy voice tells Cole as much when it first talks
to Cole in the cell after his return from the 1990 trip trip.
"No way to confirm anything" says the voice.
Concrete Skull
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Dan Bongard say:
> My vote goes for: The guy was crazy, so he didn't mind dying to
> further his apocalyptic dreams.
That about sums up my thoughts on the matter as well.
Even if Pony Tail Man had a cure, I don't think it's very relevant to the
story, at least for the amount of the story that we saw in the movie.
That is, if he knew how to engineer a cure, the scientists could probably
learn it, but since that would all happen after the end of the film (and
in the future of all time lines we got to see), then who really cares?
vph
Concrete Skull
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
> Certainly, if Terry Gilliam (or is it the producers?) had cast
> John Lithgow as the sample case guy, then we would be better
> informed.
Are you saying the mere casting decision would have given us a clue or
that Lithgow is a much better actor than Pony Tail Man and would have
made his motivation more clear to us?
> To be sure. Now for my bombshell: I think that Dr. Peters may
> very well be innocent of any evil.
You know, for all your theories and thinking you've obviously done about
this movie, it amazes me that you find it so flawed. Perhaps what I like
about it is the very thing you dislike. I like that the details are
totally consistent (except for that annoying Bob thing) within the rules
that film sets up for itself (the only rules that matter) and that the
rest isn't explained because it isn't important. Then again, maybe not.
> Dr. Peters may even have
> bought a book and approached Dr. Railly with his "Chicken Little"
> speech just as an opportunity to make social contact with an
> attractive single woman.
Your theories on Dr. Peters seem to contain way too many coincidences,
even more so than the original film. And as far as I can tell, you
consider coincidences to be a Bad Thing.
So, in your theory, the man many of us think is your basic Mad Scientist,
coincidentally is at a convention where someone is giving a speech on
impending plagues and such, coincidentally exhibits behavior which I'd
consider unsettling and menacing (tho you could argue that he's just a
technoid, so he doesn't relate well to others, which is valid),
coincidentally is there when Goines takes the call and decides to beef up
security, meaning if he were a bad guy, he might have to act fast,
coincidentally (and this is the kicker for me) is going on VACATION is a
huge variety of places...
OK, even if one accepts your theory that Pony Tail Man is only
accidentally carrying the virus (never mind that scene I'd describe as
menacing or disturbing where he seems to delight in releasing the virus,
tho you have an explanation for that...), then is it not the supreme
coincidence that the one virus carrier in the world suddenly decides to
go on a vacation all over the globe? Who pops around like that on
vacation? Sounds more like someone who knows he's only got two weeks to
spread the virus around as much as possible.
It is an interesting theory, tho, and one I doubt I'd ever have thought
of. I thought it was pretty clear that Pony Tail Man is the bad guy, but
it's nice to see others reinterpreting the story in a completely foreign
(to me) way.
> Why does she think that the virus was released by evil people?
Because she was just in the mindset of chasing the Army of the 12
Monkeys. It's the way she was thinking about it and the way the audience
is thinking about it, too.
> Dr. Railly is behaving like an irrational paranoid at this point.
That's a bit of an overstatement. I'd say she was acting like someone
who was working on some fairly good evidence that the end of the world is
nigh.
> And remember that ONLY Dr. Railly knows that Dr. Peters is there
> in the airport, so don't claim that the scientists (of 2035) knew
> about Dr. Peters.
No, I don't think they did until Cole pointed him out. And Cole got that
info from Railly. I believe someone around here said that Cole wouldn't
have that data, but I'm pretty sure Railly pointed him out to Cole.
> A more reasonable interpretation is to accept Dr. Peters
> statements that he is going on business to collect samples of
> emerging virii at such places as they occur -- Kinshasha for
> Ebola and China for the lastest influenza bug that the pigs
> and ducks have for the human race.
Oh, does he say business? Hmm. Well, OK, never mind my vacation comment
then. But still, he's only got 2 weeks to get everywhere and once he
started displaying symptoms, he'd probably catch on and confine himself
if he's truly a do-gooder. And it seems a bit odd that he'd be
collecting samples from all over the world on one Hellish redeye trip
like that.
> So the "to late for cure" may imply that Dr. Goines has a cure
> but it's too late to use it now.
It's possible, but it seems awfully coincidental that so many things that
seemed to be clearly pointing to one thing secretly mean another. Not
that it's impossible, but Gilliam is not of the habit of purposely
concealing the "real" action in his films.
> This is a Terry Gilliam fantasy, so anything could be right.
This is the part I don't get. You have these elaborate theories about
the film, but then you say it's all nonsense anyway. Why waste your time
working out possible explanations when you think it's all doodlings?
Is it just the Devil's Advocate thing? That I can understand. It does
give us something to talk about.
But I have a hard time believing that someone who spends so much time
promoting their theories about a film and thinking about different
possibilities really and truly believes that the thing doesn't make any
sense.
vph
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996 21:33:47 -0400,
Concrete Skull <j...@winona.cs.miami.edu>
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:On Thu, 3 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
:> This is a Terry Gilliam fantasy, so anything could be right.
:This is the part I don't get. You have these elaborate theories about
:the film, but then you say it's all nonsense anyway. Why waste your time
:working out possible explanations when you think it's all doodlings?
I had put a nice posting in rec.arts.movies.past-films concerning
VERTIGO, LAURA, and THE GHOST AND MRS MUIR. Maybe I was off the
mark on my comments about a common element in those films. All
I know is that the thread died after two people commented. I get
a lot more milage from these 12 MONKEYS threads.
I just watched SCARLETT STREET (1945) starring Edgar G. Robinson
and directed by Fritz Lang -- you know, that Metropolis guy.
Somehow, I doubt that I'd be able to hold any lenghty threads
over that movie.
I will say here that I think Edgar G. Robinson was a totally
magnificient actor -- one of the best. But face it. Usenet
is built on controversy. I can assure you that I'm not posting
deliberate inflammatory articles though.
TWELVE MONKEYS started so well. It suffered from a ponderous
confusing plot. I'm still not sure whether Jose arrived in
the WW1 battlefield before or after giving Cole the gun in
the airport. I can't understand how Cole can walk around
for several days with a WW1 bullet in his thigh. I can't
understand why Cole is in Baltimore 1996 when he should have
been sent to Philadelphia 1996. Also, I thought that adding
the Hitchcock Festival was additional baggage. Plus, how
did the pair of fugitives escape from the hourly hotel room
with the police at the door? I admit to feeling confused.
:Is it just the Devil's Advocate thing? That I can understand. It does
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:23:47 GMT,
Cra...@sedona.net
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:Concrete Skull <j...@winona.cs.miami.edu> wrote:
:>No, I don't think they did until Cole pointed him out. And Cole got that
:>info from Railly. I believe someone around here said that Cole wouldn't
:>have that data, but I'm pretty sure Railly pointed him out to Cole.
:Dr. Goines Assistant had eleven destinations in mind. I f you add the
:starting location that is TWELVE places to release the virus. Just a
:coincidence! Goines and the Assistant were in it together and the zoo
:escapade was just a great big diversion-the kind Jeffery was good at!
According to the companion papaerback, Dr. Peters' itinerary is:
(from Philadephia), San Francisco, New Orleans, Rio de Janerio,
Kinshasa, Karachi, Bangkok, Peking.
That's eight cities. The paperback adds Rome as a city when the
scientists of 2035 describe the cities where the outbreaks occur.
I don't know what the film says.
Look. Here's my latest addition to the "Dr. Peters is innocent"
theory. The airline baggage check clerk remarks that "Wooo-eee!
That's some trip you're taking, sir -- all in one week!" Dr. Peters
shrugs and replies "Business." Given that a virus is *may* *already*
be present in those cities, we might guess that Dr. Peters is
being sent to collect samples of the "new flu bug". Since Dr. Peters
is chief hunchback to Nobel Prize winner Dr. Goines, this is logical
that he (Pony Tail Man) should go to collect samples in those
places.
The sample case would be empty before he leaves to collect the
samples. Maybe the vials contain an inert gas like nitrogen
in the name of biological purity. That explains Dr. Peters
explains that the vials are _not_ empty -- they contain an
odorless, invisible substance.
Now we have a reason for the alleged coincidence of Dr. Peters
itinerary. The only remaining coincidence is that Judy Simmons,
a.k.a. Dr. Railly spots him at the airport. I can concede that
for the sake of plot. The net result is that James Cole is
chasing a man who doesn't have the virus.
Still unexplained is "Why does Jose give Cole a LeMat pistol?"
and "Who or what is behind the voice calling Cole Bob?"
As for whether the scientists of 2035 get their sample or not,
it seems like a step in the right direction if Ms. Jones "Inusarance"
follows Dr. Peters to San Francisco and gets a sample at the same
hospital that Dr. Peters visits.
Gerthein Boersma
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Unfortunately, coincidence is overused in movies -- probably since
>the last twenty years. A coincidence is used as a short-cut by
>screenwriters to jump over the hard work of developing and unfolding
>a plot. FRankly, I thought it stunk when the ship's captain stumbled
>into Sam Spade's office with the Maltese Falcon. It was obvious that
>the screen-writer didn't want to use up time showing the captain
>escaping with the falcon and the circumstances that brought him to
>Sam Spade.
Well, coincidence is a plot-device, but this *is* a movie. Without
coincidences, the movie would only slow down, and be none the better
for it. It might be more realistic, but realism isn't everything (if
the coincidence isn't too much of a stretch).
>These coincidences are tiresome. Where's the killer? Looking around
>the crowd -- there he is! How convenient. How phony.
Ahem..That *was* a bit of a stretch, but it was about time the movie
started to move again, so I can understand why they did this..
<snipped: Peters is innocent, some reasons why I think so>
>I hope people are taking in what I'm getting at. It's like some old
>movie I saw where a easy explantion of the crime is rejected becuase
>it's "too perfect".
Okay, you have a point, you build a strong case for Peters (ever
consider becoming a Lawyer? :-). But I still believe it was the idea
that Peters did it. Ridley Scott put 'mild' evidence that Deckard was
a replicant in BR, and also some things that didn't jive with that
assumption; on purpose, making for an interesting debate. It is my
belief that your evidence that Peters is innocent is a bit too
constructed and it was not intended by Gilliam or anyone else that
way.
>Was that intended as ironic understatement? This isn't Bridge Over
>the River Kwai or any other dramatic retelling of historic fact!
>This isn't even Casablanca where a murder aboard a train and
>a corrupt police chief is a believable fiction. We're talking
>about a movie on a par with David Cronenberg's The Fly.
I disagree. 12 Monkeys is a fantasy in that it is a story that has
been made up from start to finish, and the writer(s) have taken
liberties with physics and even, on occasion, with logic to allow for
an intruiging movie that, aside from some flaws, fits like clockwork
(I know your opinion is quite the opposite, but I agree with the other
poster, who stated something a long the lines of 12M fitting like
clockwork).
>Is there a newsgroup alt.praise.uncritical.terry-gilliam? I bemoan
>the fact that Twelve Monkeys is probably one of the most intelligent
>movies that I've seen in the past year. That is a sad statement
>about the knucklehead movies that Hollywood has been cranking out.
>Even a film like Mulholland Falls had idiotic scenes where a beach
>cottage is destroyed by a large caliber truck mounted machine gun.
Of course, I wasn't telling you to stop critisizing this movie, but it
seems you don't have even one nice word to say about it, which I find
strange, as it is so much better than most pictures. You can disagree,
but judging by the fact that you talk about this movie quite a lot,
I'm assuming you find it interesting at the very least. I also doubt
anyone can fault the acting or (off-beat) directing. I would like to
hear what you did like about it. Not because I can't handle anyone
critizing my favorite movie (it isn't my favorite movie, BTW, but *is*
one of the best I've seen this year), but because I find it hard to
believe that you hate everything about it.
I agree Hollywood has been pumping out more trash than usual in the
past decade, but I don't think 12M is one of the most intelligent and
great movies just because of lack of competition. I feel that way
because I was really intrigued, surprised and more than satisfied with
every aspect, including that ending which you found so dissapointing.
>I'm sorry if you think I'm trashing your favorite movie for some
>perverse reason -- as if I was trying to incite a reaction. It's
>just that the plot has flaws and people all over the world are
>asking questions about "who or what is that voice which calls
>James Cole by the name of Bob?". There are a lot of important
>plot details that are left unanswered and that's why it's worth
>the time to toss out alternative explanations.
I totally agree. I enjoy discussing this movie. I'm assuming you do
too. Which must mean you do find it somewhat good and at least
intelligent enough. Afterall, you don't discuss the plot-holes of
ID4..
On a related note, discussing 'the Voice' and the time-travels, the
'plague' and Peters etc. are all more or less interesting and
relevant. The 'puke factor' and various other points you have brought
up are not. They are technicalities, which are rather irrelevant. It's
fine by me that you don't like the movie, but there is no need to
nitpick just to show this movie is not realistic or logical,
especially since I feel you build a strong enough case with the
relevant arguments.
>I don't think there will ever be a consensus reality of this
>movie. The raspy voice tells Cole as much when it first talks
>to Cole in the cell after his return from the 1990 trip trip.
>"No way to confirm anything" says the voice.
Indeed, but I like a bit of ambiguity (sp?) now and again. That's what
this movie is about, at least partly.
BTW, I think the voice defies all logic and was a typical
Gilliam-esque addition that doesn't jive, but it's interesting
nonetheless...
Let me close by saying (answering to a wholly different thread on
rec.arts.sf.movies) that 12 Monkeys is still the best sci-fi movie
I've seen in the past 12 months.
Oh, and please enter your name or handle in the relevant box in your
news program, Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net!
No offense, all to do with nettiquete and such...
Cra...@sedona.net
Concrete Skull <j...@winona.cs.miami.edu> wrote:
>> And remember that ONLY Dr. Railly knows that Dr. Peters is there
>> in the airport, so don't claim that the scientists (of 2035) knew
>> about Dr. Peters.
They would know about the pony tail man if the woman on the plane was
Dr. Railley sent back from the future.
>No, I don't think they did until Cole pointed him out. And Cole got that
>info from Railly. I believe someone around here said that Cole wouldn't
>have that data, but I'm pretty sure Railly pointed him out to Cole.
Dr. Goines Assistant had eleven destinations in mind. I f you add the
Dan Bongard
Concrete Skull (j...@winona.cs.miami.edu) wrote:
: On Thu, 3 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
: > And remember that ONLY Dr. Railly knows that Dr. Peters is there
: > in the airport, so don't claim that the scientists (of 2035) knew
: > about Dr. Peters.
: No, I don't think they did until Cole pointed him out. And Cole got that
: info from Railly. I believe someone around here said that Cole wouldn't
: have that data, but I'm pretty sure Railly pointed him out to Cole.
Railly comes racing up to Cole while Jose (the other 'agent from the
future') is standing there, and shouts out that Peters, an apocalypse
freak genetics researcher, is in the airport. Railly and Cole then
go racing off to stop him.
Both of you seem to be overlooking the rather obvious point that JOSE
quite probably heard what Railly said. She wasn't exactly making an
effort to not be overheard. And of course once Jose knows that the
future scientists have all the time in the world to figure out
exactly who she was talking about, what seat he was in, etc. Time is
on their side after all.
BTW: what kind of an idiot could possibly think that Peters isn't
the person who started the plague?
-- Dan
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:05:02 GMT,
:Railly comes racing up to Cole while Jose (the other 'agent from the
:future') is standing there, and shouts out that Peters, an apocalypse
:freak genetics researcher, is in the airport. Railly and Cole then
:go racing off to stop him.
:Both of you seem to be overlooking the rather obvious point that JOSE
:quite probably heard what Railly said. She wasn't exactly making an
:effort to not be overheard. And of course once Jose knows that the
:future scientists have all the time in the world to figure out
:exactly who she was talking about, what seat he was in, etc. Time is
:on their side after all.
Nice try but no cigar. Jose shows up with a gun and presses the
gun on Cole. Jose has orders. Cole is supposed to shoot someone.
That doesn't make much sense given the "immutable past" theory.
Jose also claims that the leaders of 2035-world have "just put it
together" and Jose expresses regret that they hadn't figured
it out earlier. That implies that the leaders of 2035 have solved
the puzzle. In particular, they have solved the puzzle *before*
getting a report from Jose concerning the events that follow
with Cole and the gun and Cole chasing after Dr. Peters.
Patch up your theory a bit and I'll be glad to read it.
:BTW: what kind of an idiot could possibly think that Peters isn't
:the person who started the plague?
It's an exercise in analytical thinking.
What kind of research is Dr. Goines and Dr. Peters engaged in?
Dr. Railly supplies a clue that "Dr. Goines is someone you can't
just barge in on, James. He's very well known..." And also,
in regard to Jeffery she says "And he told you his father was
a famous virologist." Dr Goines at his formal dinner, addresses
the guests with the words "Current genetic engineering as well
as my own work with viruses has presented us with powers as
terrifying as any ---".
Remember that genetic engineering is something scientists do
with E. Coli bacteria. Virology is something they do with
Ebola viruses. Clearly, Dr. Goines has dangerous pathogens
in his laboratory. Is he building viruses or is he collecting
and studying viruses?
And as another poster pointed out, building a novel lethal
virus is nothing that a scientist does in his spare time.
Either Dr. Goines and his fellow scientists are all tinkering
with a human constructed virus or else their lab is involved
in the less exciting work of finding a cure for HIV infection.
Taking the less paranoid alternative, we can theorize that
Dr. Peters is off to collect samples of a new flu that has
appeared from the places where enfluenza viruses come from.
Or else, it's a more exotic emerging viruses like Ebola,
Hanta or Tengue (sp?). Dr. Peters is most likely part of
the world-wide response to a new health threat.
The last words we hear from Dr. Goines (other than his
statement to his son) is that it's too late for a cure.
I take that to mean that Dr. Goines was on the front line
of the battle against the killer virus.
Dr. Peters' trip truely *is* business. He's collecting
samples. If Dr. Peters had stolen a dangerous pathogen
and released it, then that would have been well-reported
in the news.
Dan Bongard
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
: :Both of you seem to be overlooking the rather obvious point that JOSE
: :quite probably heard what Railly said. She wasn't exactly making an
: :effort to not be overheard.
: Nice try but no cigar. Jose shows up with a gun and presses the
: gun on Cole. Jose has orders. Cole is supposed to shoot someone.
: That doesn't make much sense given the "immutable past" theory.
Why not? It seems to me that your theory is based on a few assumptions
that are obviously wrong:
(a): That the scientists have records of what happened in the past.
(b): That they are trying to change things.
How is it 'changing the past' to give Cole a gun? What is changing?
Note that Jose never mentions a word about who Cole is supposed
to shoot... which suggests to me that the scientists might just
be setting him up to be killed.
Don't forget that Cole _always_ died the way he did, gun in hand.
The first thing we SEE in the movie is Cole's childhood memory
of seeing his adult self get shot, gun in hand.
: Jose also claims that the leaders of 2035-world have "just put it
: together" and Jose expresses regret that they hadn't figured
: it out earlier. That implies that the leaders of 2035 have solved
: the puzzle. In particular, they have solved the puzzle *before*
: getting a report from Jose concerning the events that follow
: with Cole and the gun and Cole chasing after Dr. Peters.
Ah, no... you're extremely confused. Jose's remark about "putting
it together" refers to the _physical_ act of reconstructing
the _tape_ from the voice mail system. It is mentioned during the
film that the tape is damaged and is only slowly being constructed.
This is why Cole hears Railly's 'joke message' "before" she
actually records it, but doesn't hear his own voice. The scientists
indicate that they aren't done restoring the tape. When Jose says
they "just put it together" he means that they just put the TAPE
together, got Cole's message about never coming back, and sent
agents to the airport to find out what the hell was going on.
Jose never indicates anything one way or the other about them having
figured out who the "real" virus-carrier is. You might also want to
bear in mind that time is quite literally on the scientist's side...
they have an indeterminate amount of time to use OTHER agents to
figure out who REALLY carried the virus, even if Jose didn't
overhear Railly. So of course the scientist's presence on the plane
isn't necessarily because of anything Railly did, and certainly
has no bearing on anything Cole did -- when you get right down to
it Cole's only contribution to the "whodunit" search is his
bringing Railly in on the hunt. :)
: Patch up your theory a bit and I'll be glad to read it.
You're seeing holes where they didn't exist; watch the film again
and you'll see what I'm talking about.
:: BTW: what kind of an idiot could possibly think that Peters isn't
:: the person who started the plague?
: It's an exercise in analytical thinking.
['analytical' thinking snipped]
So I suppose it is just a coincidence that a known apocalypse nut,
employed in lab that engineers dangerous viruses, just _happens_
to be taking an airline flight to the exact cities where the
plague started, on the exact days that the plague started, while
carrying 'biological samples' that he then (in violation of basic
rules _any_ lab personnel would know) opens up and exposes to
people nearby? Tell me, what other possible motivation could
explain Peters' behavior? You've hypothesized that he was travelling
in order to _obtain_ biological samples. That means that he lied
on his invoices (by claiming the vials weren't empty) and lied
to the customs agent, complete with awe-filled voice, about how
"I assure you [the vials] are not [empty]". What's his motivation
for doing that?
Here's a new tool of analytical thinking for you: Occam's Razor.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: This isn't a fan newgroup.
Given that you're crossposting to alt.movies.terry-gilliam I'm afraid
I'm going to have to call you on that one. It doesn't have the
word 'fan' in the newsgroup name, but that is simply because the
'fan' is assumed in cases where a subject like 'movies' is narrowed
to a specific director.
-- Dan
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:05:18 GMT,
gert...@worldaccess.nl (Gerthein Boersma)
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
[The Big Snip]
:Okay, you have a point, you build a strong case for Peters (ever
:consider becoming a Lawyer? :-). But I still believe it was the idea
:that Peters did it. Ridley Scott put 'mild' evidence that Deckard was
:a replicant in BR, and also some things that didn't jive with that
:assumption; on purpose, making for an interesting debate. It is my
:belief that your evidence that Peters is innocent is a bit too
:constructed and it was not intended by Gilliam or anyone else that
:way.
[Snipped in the bud]
:I disagree. 12 Monkeys is a fantasy in that it is a story that has
:been made up from start to finish, and the writer(s) have taken
:liberties with physics and even, on occasion, with logic to allow for
:an intruiging movie that, aside from some flaws, fits like clockwork
:(I know your opinion is quite the opposite, but I agree with the other
:poster, who stated something a long the lines of 12M fitting like
:clockwork).
[Snip]
:Indeed, but I like a bit of ambiguity (sp?) now and again. That's what
:this movie is about, at least partly.
:BTW, I think the voice defies all logic and was a typical
:Gilliam-esque addition that doesn't jive, but it's interesting
:nonetheless...
This isn't a fan newgroup. I have to admit that once I posted to
alt.fan.barry-manilow an article that expressed my great dislike
for that singer. The reaction was "why are you harrasing those
of us who *do* like Barry Manilow?" So I dropped that NG from my
subscribed list. I _am_ a mild sort of Enya fan but I stopped
reading that newsgroup because it was nothing but guys who wanted
to date the singer -- well, that's an exaggeration maybe, but you
know what I mean.
What's the point of everyone posting: "Oh wow! TWELVE MONKEYS is
so cool!"? The way I see it, you ought to thank me for keeping
some controversy alive -- otherwise, there's no real discussion.
A few words of praise for 12M, though, are in order. Thumbs up
for the set design and the cinemaphotography. Terry Gilliam
also got good performances from his cast (which is what a
director is paid to do). The moody world of 2035 was stunning.
The script's conceit of pairing events or images created a
state of mental confusion which I think was intended and which
is appropriate to the subject matter. For instance, the images
of bears, NMRI machines, showers (too bad Madeliene Stowe didn't
get one), doctors behind a long table, television sets, etc. All
that had a dizzying effect that made Cole's "divergence" seem
all the more real.
Sorry about the lack of a name in my postings. I can't seem to
figure out how to use this newsreader. I have to admit that I
am a techophobe -- just like Terry Gilliam.
Gerthein Boersma
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>This isn't a fan newgroup. I have to admit that once I posted to
>alt.fan.barry-manilow an article that expressed my great dislike
>for that singer. The reaction was "why are you harrasing those
>of us who *do* like Barry Manilow?" So I dropped that NG from my
>subscribed list. I _am_ a mild sort of Enya fan but I stopped
>reading that newsgroup because it was nothing but guys who wanted
>to date the singer -- well, that's an exaggeration maybe, but you
>know what I mean.
I do, and have said before that I have nothing against you critisizing
the movie. I am, in fact, glad that someone points out some of the
flaws/questionable things. I'll look out for them next time. I've only
seen the movie once, and will rent it again as soon as it hits video
in the Netherlands. The whole ending you critisize (with the gun etc.)
is a bit hazy for me now, for example. I did find it rather rivetting
when I saw it though.
I was merely pointing out that a) you were nitpicking some irrelevant
technicalities such as 'the puke factor' and b) I found it hard to
believe you had nothing but dislike for this movie because you must
have seen it more often than I have, and find it worthy to discuss
unlike, say ID4. But keep controversy alive by all means.
>A few words of praise for 12M, though, are in order. Thumbs up
>for the set design and the cinemaphotography. Terry Gilliam
>also got good performances from his cast (which is what a
>director is paid to do). The moody world of 2035 was stunning.
>The script's conceit of pairing events or images created a
>state of mental confusion which I think was intended and which
>is appropriate to the subject matter. For instance, the images
>of bears, NMRI machines, showers (too bad Madeliene Stowe didn't
>get one)
Ah, I have to totally agree with you there. I think I want to date her
;-)
>, doctors behind a long table, television sets, etc. All
>that had a dizzying effect that made Cole's "divergence" seem
>all the more real.
Indeed, style is one of this movies main selling points. Besides that,
I thought the 'substance' great too. I liked the premise that nothing
could be changed: this made for an interesting time-travel movie. It's
hard to keep it consistent however. I loved the ambiguity of Cole: He
could never be quite sure he wasn't just a madman. The plot was great
too: the search for the A12M and Jeffrey, the virus... I even found
the ending rivetting and indeed satisfactory, although I know you
disagree.
>Sorry about the lack of a name in my postings. I can't seem to
>figure out how to use this newsreader. I have to admit that I
>am a techophobe -- just like Terry Gilliam.
I'm glad Terry is: it made for an interesting, definatly non-tech
sci-fi movie. Maybe you should look in the Options/Preferences drawer?
Gerthein Boersma
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>Why not? It seems to me that your theory is based on a few assumptions
>that are obviously wrong:
>(a): That the scientists have records of what happened in the past.
>(b): That they are trying to change things.
>How is it 'changing the past' to give Cole a gun? What is changing?
>Note that Jose never mentions a word about who Cole is supposed
>to shoot... which suggests to me that the scientists might just
>be setting him up to be killed.
>Don't forget that Cole _always_ died the way he did, gun in hand.
>The first thing we SEE in the movie is Cole's childhood memory
>of seeing his adult self get shot, gun in hand.
Well, I gotta admit Jose handing Cole the gun is a little strange...
here are my explanations:
WHY IT'S A LEMAT: This is a stupid technicality that really isn't
worth talking about. I do have a theories, but who cares? I don't. The
theory is simple: it's 2035. Mankind has fled underground. A whole new
world. Who knows which guns they managed to 'dig up' from above? They
can't be picky about it. Could have been any kind of gun.
WHY JOSE HANDS IT TO COLE:
Here's my theory: Jose is working for the scientists, who can't resist
to try if the past may be mutable afterall; thus, Cole is given the
gun to try it out... This makes sense: they would want to at least try
to stop this guy once, but are 90% sure the past is immutable, so
don't want to risk themselves.
On that note, here's an interesting thought: The scientists now
conclude, and let's assume that they do so correctly, that the past is
immutable. *That*'s why they don't try to stop Peters again, and
*that*'s why things happen(ed) the way they do (did)...
I still don't understand why "Xiu-man" (sorry 'bout that, but I need a
way to refer to the guy) doesn't believe Peters to be the bad guy. I
have only one thing against this: it's such a coincidence...
But it's no more of a coincidence then the showing of that WW1
picture, by none other than Dr. Railly (Stowe)... Sure, it gives the
impression that the world of 12M is a 4x4x4' box where everyone of
importance has something to do with the other, but this also works as
a stylistic choice: Cole is sent back to investigate the
virus-spreading. First target: A12M and Jeffrey Goins. This is of
course a miss, but it makes the movie far more exciting that it is a
*near*-hit, because Peters is directly related to Goins (he's his
fathers assistant).
Besides, the scientists could have had reason to believe it was Dr.
Goins' virus that killed humanity. They then, based perhaps on the
grafitti & such, targeted A12M and Jeffrey. They were almost right: it
was Goins' virus, but it was his unassuming assistant, not his son.
Apart from some coincidences (that are sometimes plot-devices that I
didn't find too annoying, and sometimes stylistic elements that work)
I don't find anything wrong with Dr. Peters being the Bad Guy.
As for the Voice: Psychosis is my best guess...perhaps it's a normal
result of time-travel.. or a paranormal result: maybe it's the 'spirit
of time' talking..;-). I dunno...
- Gerthein
-----------------------
gert...@worldaccess.nl
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Baldrick, you wouldn't see a subtle plan if it painted itself
purple, and danced around naked on top of a harpsicord, singing
'subtle plans are here again!'" -Blackadder
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Bongard
Gerthein Boersma (gert...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
: Cole is sent back to investigate the virus-spreading. First
: target: A12M and Jeffrey Goins. This is of course a miss, but it
: makes the movie far more exciting that it is a *near*-hit, because
: Peters is directly related to Goins (he's his fathers assistant).
It occured to me the other day that it might have been Railly's
call to Goines Sr that gave Peters the idea in the first place.
Probably not, but who knows? Peters clearly knows that Railly
thinks their lab will produce a world-destroying virus.
: Besides, the scientists could have had reason to believe it was Dr.
: Goins' virus that killed humanity. They then, based perhaps on the
: grafitti & such, targeted A12M and Jeffrey. They were almost right: it
: was Goins' virus, but it was his unassuming assistant, not his son.
It is important, IMO, to always keep in mind the fact the the
scientists show Cole photos of Dr. Goines and, I believe, Peters
as well, before he ever meets any of them in person who figures
out who they are. So it is indeed quite possible that the scientists
knew a lot more than they let Cole know. This is also, if I may drag
RL into this, very much in line with Gilliam's past portrayals of
authority figures. :)
-- Dan
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:09:47 GMT,
:Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
:: dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
:: :Both of you seem to be overlooking the rather obvious point that JOSE
:: :quite probably heard what Railly said. She wasn't exactly making an
:: :effort to not be overheard.
:: Nice try but no cigar. Jose shows up with a gun and presses the
:: gun on Cole. Jose has orders. Cole is supposed to shoot someone.
:: That doesn't make much sense given the "immutable past" theory.
:Why not? It seems to me that your theory is based on a few assumptions
:that are obviously wrong:
:(a): That the scientists have records of what happened in the past.
:(b): That they are trying to change things.
:How is it 'changing the past' to give Cole a gun? What is changing?
:Note that Jose never mentions a word about who Cole is supposed
:to shoot... which suggests to me that the scientists might just
:be setting him up to be killed.
Let's suppose that the scientists of 2035 want Cole to be killed.
Since Cole is attempting to escape -- at least, Cole thinks he
is escaping -- then the scientists may want him killed. They may
have other plans, but let's take this scenario and examine it.
First, the scientists must issue an order. Second, someone must
carry out that order. I am under the impression that the Philadelphia
police shot Cole. Are you saying that the Philly police are taking
orders from people in their future?
:Don't forget that Cole _always_ died the way he did, gun in hand.
Cole has a recurrent dream about seeing a man shot in an airport
but he has no conscious memory of the episode -- if, indeed, such
an event ever happened. The idea reeks of pop psychology yet
we see it used in movies like Tommy (the boy is deaf and blind
as a result of seeing his father murdered) and Marnie (Tippi
Hedren has nightmares and panics at the sight of the color
red due to her childhood experience with Bruce Dern). We movies
begin with a dream sequence, I groan -- its hookum.
:The first thing we SEE in the movie is Cole's childhood memory
:of seeing his adult self get shot, gun in hand.
James Cole is in mufti when we see him shot. The man who is shot looks
rather like Rob Reiner on the Archie Bunker Show. Of course, we
all guess that the man is Bruce Willis. What a shock it would have
been if the man turned out to be some sort of look-a-like. But
by the time Dr. Railly changes her hair color and dons the flowery
dress then all the suspense is gone. The movie ends quite unlike
a Hitchcock triller.
:: Jose also claims that the leaders of 2035-world have "just put it
:: together" and Jose expresses regret that they hadn't figured
:: it out earlier. That implies that the leaders of 2035 have solved
:: the puzzle. In particular, they have solved the puzzle *before*
:: getting a report from Jose concerning the events that follow
:: with Cole and the gun and Cole chasing after Dr. Peters.
:Ah, no... you're extremely confused. Jose's remark about "putting
:it together" refers to the _physical_ act of reconstructing
:the _tape_ from the voice mail system. It is mentioned during the
:film that the tape is damaged and is only slowly being constructed.
:This is why Cole hears Railly's 'joke message' "before" she
:actually records it, but doesn't hear his own voice. The scientists
:indicate that they aren't done restoring the tape. When Jose says
:they "just put it together" he means that they just put the TAPE
:together, got Cole's message about never coming back, and sent
:agents to the airport to find out what the hell was going on.
The whole matter of the voice mail tape is totally idiotic. These
scientists have a tape and a phone number but they don't know
what's on the tape. In regards to the first message (Dr. Railly's
"prank" call), they ask Cole if he left that message.
Here's the problem the scientists face: James Cole has already
left his message on an answering machine tape 40 years ago. When
they give Cole his first assignment, they need to know the
phone number that he called 40 years ago. That's a quite thorny
problem. If Cole uses a Calling Card and if they have access
to the phone bill associated with that Calling Card, then they
can discover the phone number he called and give Cole that
phone number in order to complete the time loop. Unfortunately,
Cole may be using a stolen Calling Card.
:Jose never indicates anything one way or the other about them having
:figured out who the "real" virus-carrier is. You might also want to
:bear in mind that time is quite literally on the scientist's side...
:they have an indeterminate amount of time to use OTHER agents to
:figure out who REALLY carried the virus, even if Jose didn't
:overhear Railly.
In point of fact, we know that one of the prison guards from 2035
is at the airport with Jose. How do the scientists locate
Cole? Cole is wearing a disguise to prevent the Philly police
from spotting him. It's a big airport too. There's a lot of
pay phones. Cole could be down one of several concourses and
the concourses can be hundreds of yards long. There's a lot of
people in the airport becuase of the holidays and Cole is sure
to bury his nose in a magazine when he gets to his gate.
Jose seems to be quite a bird dog to have found Cole so easily.
: So of course the scientist's presence on the plane
:isn't necessarily because of anything Railly did, and certainly
:has no bearing on anything Cole did -- when you get right down to
:it Cole's only contribution to the "whodunit" search is his
:bringing Railly in on the hunt. :)
:: Patch up your theory a bit and I'll be glad to read it.
:You're seeing holes where they didn't exist; watch the film again
:and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Furthermore, how does giving Cole a gun -- an antique Civil War
revolver or replica thereof -- "set Cole up to be killed?" Cole
is not very bright but we do know that he was smart enough to
*not* take the pistol into Dr. Goines' formal dinner party. Cole
can leave with Dr. Railly for Key West with no problem by merely
dropping the gun in a trash barrel.
::: BTW: what kind of an idiot could possibly think that Peters isn't
::: the person who started the plague?
:: It's an exercise in analytical thinking.
:['analytical' thinking snipped]
:So I suppose it is just a coincidence that a known apocalypse nut,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why does Dr. Goines employ a "known apocalypse nut" as his chief
assistant? Dr. Railly is the only person who uses those words
and she is not thinking rationally at the time when she says
them. Dr. Railly has "lost her religion" in the sense that she
is a trained psyciatrist who takes up stray-painting walls
with bizarre warnings about some impending killer plague.
:employed in lab that engineers dangerous viruses, just _happens_
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The lab has dangerous pathogens and a security procedure to
guard them. It is not known if Dr. Goines and his staff of
lunatic scientists are building new and lethal viruses. Dr.
Goines is a "world famous virologist" in the same way that
Robert Gallo (???) is a world famous virologist. Is the
Goines lab equipped for genetic engineering or is it in
the business of finding cures for viral diseaes? We don't
know, but if safer to assume the latter than the former.
:to be taking an airline flight to the exact cities where the
:plague started, on the exact days that the plague started, while
:carrying 'biological samples' that he then (in violation of basic
:rules _any_ lab personnel would know) opens up and exposes to
:people nearby?
Oddly, Dr. Peters has a big hand full of official papers giving
him permission to carry that sample case. If his mission is to
infect the world, then the virus could be smuggled in perfume
bottles or better yet, in plastic vials. Remember that Dr. Peters
will be going through customs checkpoints where a pack of cigarettes
of a chocolate candy bar would be contraband (you can't bring
liquor filled bonbons into the US).
Also, we have to answer the question of why didn't Dr. Peters
check his sample case as ordinary baggage. All these questions
are easily answered if Dr. Peters is just what he claims to be.
He's a scientist on a business trip -- most likely to collect
samples of a new virus. In fact, Dr. Peters is quite likely
on his way to collect samples of the very killer virus that
Cole is searching for.
: Tell me, what other possible motivation could
:explain Peters' behavior? You've hypothesized that he was travelling
:in order to _obtain_ biological samples. That means that he lied
:on his invoices (by claiming the vials weren't empty) and lied
:to the customs agent, complete with awe-filled voice, about how
:"I assure you [the vials] are not [empty]". What's his motivation
:for doing that?
The vials are empty when he starts his business trip. Dr. Peters
will need the paper work in order to _import_ the pathogenic material.
The idea that Dr. Peters is releasing a deadly virus is absurd.
If he intended to infect people, then he would have done so
*away* from the security guards. Put yourself in the mindset
of a master-terrorist. Would you risk your suicide mission
at the obvious checkpoints? Doesn't it make more sense to spread
the disease in as discreet a manner as possible? If Dr. Peters
is truely AWOL from his job at a high security lab and given
the fact that the police may think that Dr. Peters has been kidnapped
along with Dr. Goines, then it makes sense to do this horrific
deed off in a darkly lit bar.
Dr. Peters only seems like a lunatic if you assume he is a virus
spreading terrorist. If you accept him as a medical researcher,
then his actions are all rational.
:Here's a new tool of analytical thinking for you: Occam's Razor.
Dan Bongard
::::Both of you seem to be overlooking the rather obvious point that JOSE
::::quite probably heard what Railly said. She wasn't exactly making an
::::effort to not be overheard.
::: Nice try but no cigar. Jose shows up with a gun and presses the
::: gun on Cole. Jose has orders. Cole is supposed to shoot someone.
::: That doesn't make much sense given the "immutable past" theory.
::Why not? It seems to me that your theory is based on a few assumptions
::that are obviously wrong:
::(a): That the scientists have records of what happened in the past.
::(b): That they are trying to change things.
::How is it 'changing the past' to give Cole a gun? What is changing?
::Note that Jose never mentions a word about who Cole is supposed
::to shoot... which suggests to me that the scientists might just
::be setting him up to be killed.
: Let's suppose that the scientists of 2035 want Cole to be killed.
: Since Cole is attempting to escape -- at least, Cole thinks he
: is escaping -- then the scientists may want him killed. They may
: have other plans, but let's take this scenario and examine it.
: First, the scientists must issue an order. Second, someone must
: carry out that order. I am under the impression that the Philadelphia
: police shot Cole. Are you saying that the Philly police are taking
: orders from people in their future?
Earth to Beavis: what does that have to do with anything? The Philly
police shot him because they thought, not without reason, that he
was a gun-wielding psycho out on a killing spree. Why would they
need to be taking orders from the scientists? What I said was that
the scientists might have _set_him_up_ to be killed -- ie, because
they might have had foreknowledge that he was scheduled to be
shot to death while trying to kill Peters.
I notice that you chose a 'straw man' argument over answering
my question about HOW it is changing the past to give Cole a gun.
::Don't forget that Cole _always_ died the way he did, gun in hand.
: Cole has a recurrent dream about seeing a man shot in an airport
: but he has no conscious memory of the episode -- if, indeed, such
: an event ever happened. The idea reeks of pop psychology yet
: we see it used in movies like Tommy (the boy is deaf and blind
: as a result of seeing his father murdered) and Marnie (Tippi
: Hedren has nightmares and panics at the sight of the color
: red due to her childhood experience with Bruce Dern). We movies
: begin with a dream sequence, I groan -- its hookum.
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it can't
happen. Children have, in fact, entered autistic states due to
childhood trauma (although 'Tommy' is still bogus so far as I
know, since actual blindness cannot be psychologically inducedso
far as I know). I can't speak or 'Marnie'. But whether you believe
it or not, the phenomenon of repressed memories manifesting themselves
in dreams has been empirically proven to occur; the problem is
that, in the absence of physical evidence, it is impossible to tell
if a memory is real or imagined. The fact that so many bogus "recovered
memory" claims are made in no way detracts from the fact that
repression of traumatic memories does, in fact, happen.
In any event, how was it that you were explaining the fact that
Cole's dream perfectly matches his death at the end of the movie?
Just a coincidence? It seems like every time someone points
out an aspect of 12M that irrefutably proves that 12M time is
unalterable you either change the subject or attack an unrelated
part of the film.
:: The first thing we SEE in the movie is Cole's childhood memory
:: of seeing his adult self get shot, gun in hand.
: by the time Dr. Railly changes her hair color and dons the flowery
: dress then all the suspense is gone. The movie ends quite unlike
: a Hitchcock triller.
Yes, yes, Xilwhatever. We KNOW you didn't like the movie. That doesn't
make your theories about alleged plot holes any more valid, though.
Cole's dream changes throughout the movie, with the only constants
being the general events themselves -- man shot, woman screaming,
briefcase-carrying man walking by. This is actually pretty much
the way repressed memories manifest in dreams; the concept remains
stable while the details change.
::: Jose also claims that the leaders of 2035-world have "just put it
::: together" and Jose expresses regret that they hadn't figured
::: it out earlier. That implies that the leaders of 2035 have solved
::: the puzzle. In particular, they have solved the puzzle *before*
::: getting a report from Jose concerning the events that follow
::: with Cole and the gun and Cole chasing after Dr. Peters.
:: Ah, no... you're extremely confused. Jose's remark about "putting
:: it together" refers to the _physical_ act of reconstructing
:: the _tape_ from the voice mail system. It is mentioned during the
:: film that the tape is damaged and is only slowly being constructed.
:: This is why Cole hears Railly's 'joke message' "before" she
:: actually records it, but doesn't hear his own voice. The scientists
:: indicate that they aren't done restoring the tape. When Jose says
:: they "just put it together" he means that they just put the TAPE
:: together, got Cole's message about never coming back, and sent
:: agents to the airport to find out what the hell was going on.
: The whole matter of the voice mail tape is totally idiotic. These
: scientists have a tape and a phone number but they don't know
: what's on the tape. In regards to the first message (Dr. Railly's
: "prank" call), they ask Cole if he left that message.
Once again you chose insults over logic, I see. You also neglected
to acknowledge that your original interpretation of the above
scene was completely and utterly wrong. BTW -- what's 'idiotic'
about it? They don't know what is on the tape because the tape
is in lousy condition. Who knows why they chose the tape? Maybe
it was one of the only publically-accessable means of data
storage from 1996 that they still had access to, so they were forced
to use it despite its lousy condition and were slowly piecing it
together. On the flip side, maybe it was only one of thousands of
'message services' being used by the unknown number of 'time agents',
and they simply hadn't gotten around to analyzing it yet.
Or, if you'd like to hear a _really_ odd idea (which I'm sure you
don't, but TS): the scientists might have already gotten Cole's
message earlier on in the movie and dispatched Jose _then_ to
take care of what will, by then, be a rebellious Cole... and in
the meantime let Cole continue his intelligence-gathering missions.
Bear in mind that Cole, on the voice-mail message, never specified
how old he was, how many missions he'd been on, or any of that.
So for all the scientists know Cole could have 'rebelled' at age
60 after 30 years of time-travel service; why waste all those
potentially useful years when you know the exact time and place
of the rebellion? :)
: Here's the problem the scientists face: James Cole has already
: left his message on an answering machine tape 40 years ago. When
: they give Cole his first assignment, they need to know the
: phone number that he called 40 years ago. That's a quite thorny
: problem. If Cole uses a Calling Card and if they have access
: to the phone bill associated with that Calling Card, then they
: can discover the phone number he called and give Cole that
: phone number in order to complete the time loop. Unfortunately,
: Cole may be using a stolen Calling Card.
Um... what? They know the number Cole will be calling. THEY are the
ones who told _him_ what the number was. He mentions this, remember?
"That's why they chose me. I'm good at remembering things." Also,
what do you mean by "time loop"?
:: Jose never indicates anything one way or the other about them having
:: figured out who the "real" virus-carrier is. You might also want to
:: bear in mind that time is quite literally on the scientist's side...
:: they have an indeterminate amount of time to use OTHER agents to
:: figure out who REALLY carried the virus, even if Jose didn't
:: overhear Railly.
: In point of fact, we know that one of the prison guards from 2035
: is at the airport with Jose. How do the scientists locate
: Cole?
They might have heard the easily recognizable airport noise in the
background. They might have known simply because the scientists
knew that Cole got shot in the airport (although this is probably
not the case IMO). For that matter Jose might have tailed him
to the airport after locating him at an earlier point where his
location was known. They might have traced the phone number (see
below).
: Cole is wearing a disguise to prevent the Philly police
: from spotting him.
It wasn't a very good disguise, now was it. He was still very
recognizable to anybody familiar with his appearance. It is also
worth noting that several of the police seemed suspicious of him.
And of course there's always the possibility that they had access
to a leftover newspaper or somesuch that showed Cole in his disguise.
: It's a big airport too. There's a lot of pay phones. Cole could
: be down one of several concourses and the concourses can be
: hundreds of yards long. There's a lot of people in the airport
: becuase of the holidays and Cole is sure to bury his nose in a
: magazine when he gets to his gate.
You might not be aware of this, but most voice mail systems record
the exact time (to the minute, anyway) of a phone call. At the
same time, the phone company keeps accurate records of who called
who at what time. Given either or both of these tidbits of
knowledge it doesn't take a rocket scientist to track Cole down
in the airport -- you know he'll be making a phone call, either at
a specific time, or from a known pay phone, or both. Given this
knowledge all it takes to find him is time. For that matter they
could simply have told Jose to wander the airport repeatedly
until he found Cole; what's the hurry?
: Jose seems to be quite a bird dog to have found Cole so easily.
*shrug* The fact that you personally lack the knowledge or cleverness
to figure out one of the countless glaringly obvious ways to
find someone in an airport doesn't mean that Jose had to being
a genius to figure them out. Besides which he has the scientists
telling him what to do. :)
::: Patch up your theory a bit and I'll be glad to read it.
: :You're seeing holes where they didn't exist; watch the film again
: :and you'll see what I'm talking about.
: Furthermore, how does giving Cole a gun -- an antique Civil War
: revolver or replica thereof -- "set Cole up to be killed?" Cole
: is not very bright but we do know that he was smart enough to
: *not* take the pistol into Dr. Goines' formal dinner party. Cole
: can leave with Dr. Railly for Key West with no problem by merely
: dropping the gun in a trash barrel.
Note that I said the scientists MAY ('may', meaning 'might have')
set Cole up to be killed. This presumes that they knew he was
going to get shot while waving an old gun (a Lemat?) in the Philly
airport, so they gave him the antique gun with no instructions. However
while that MAY (as I said) have been the case I think it is more
likely that Jose gave Cole the gun to give him (Cole, that is) a
chance to prove his loyalty by killing Railly himself and severing
his ties to "the dying world". As for why it is an old gun -- it is
of course quite possible that the scientists only have access to
whatever eclectic collection of guns are still available in the
future -- from the appearance of the underground community they
don't have any manufacturing facilities to make more. My guess
was that either the Lemat was one of the only guns they had left,
or (as is more likely) it was a crappy old gun they could afford to
spare.
: ::: BTW: what kind of an idiot could possibly think that Peters isn't
: ::: the person who started the plague?
: :: It's an exercise in analytical thinking.
: :['analytical' thinking snipped]
: :So I suppose it is just a coincidence that a known apocalypse nut,
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Why does Dr. Goines employ a "known apocalypse nut" as his chief
: assistant?
His status as an 'apocalypse nut' is presumably not known to Goines.
It is, however, known to Railly: he comes up to her an babbles about
how it is logical to think an apocalypse is coming and insane to
think it isn't. When I said "known apolcalypse nut" I meant "known
to Railly and to us as viewers" (duh).
: :employed in lab that engineers dangerous viruses, just _happens_
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: The lab has dangerous pathogens and a security procedure to
: guard them.
Ah... no. When the 12 Monkeys kidnap Goines Sr. he tells his son
"I've taken myself out of the loop. I don't have access to THE
VIRUS" (emphasis mine). What, pray tell, is "THE VIRUS", and
why would Goines take himself out of the security loop simply
because a crazy woman warned him of impending plague?
: It is not known if Dr. Goines and his staff of lunatic
: scientists are building new and lethal viruses. Dr.
: Goines is a "world famous virologist" in the same way that
: Robert Gallo (???) is a world famous virologist. Is the
: Goines lab equipped for genetic engineering or is it in
: the business of finding cures for viral diseaes? We don't
: know, but if safer to assume the latter than the former.
Um... why is it 'safer' to assume that? Based on what logic?
And on what evidence are you basing your claim that Goines is
comparable to Gallo? It is never stated WHY he is famous.
::to be taking an airline flight to the exact cities where the
::plague started, on the exact days that the plague started, while
::carrying 'biological samples' that he then (in violation of basic
::rules _any_ lab personnel would know) opens up and exposes to
::people nearby?
: Oddly, Dr. Peters has a big hand full of official papers giving
: him permission to carry that sample case. If his mission is to
: infect the world, then the virus could be smuggled in perfume
: bottles or better yet, in plastic vials. Remember that Dr. Peters
: will be going through customs checkpoints where a pack of cigarettes
: of a chocolate candy bar would be contraband (you can't bring
: liquor filled bonbons into the US).
Hello there... you just shot down your own argument. Peters has
'official papers' giving him permission to carry the samples.
And while you can't bring liquor-filled bonbons into the USA
there was, the last time I checked, no law against bringing
test tubes into the country, particularly when they seem to
be empty and the only way to confirm their contents is to
open them (which is of course exactly what Peters wants to do).
You seem to be under the bizarrly mistaken impression that
'deadly viruses' somehow look different from benign ones, and
that the former will instantly be confiscated while the latter
remain unmolested. If Peters comes to a country that attempts to
confiscate his vials he can simply discard the papers and claim
to be carrying empty test tubes (which are not illegal) anywhere
that I know of. And of course (as if your theory needed another
hole shot in it) there is also the fact that it is often possible
to avoid customs altogether if all you are simply using the
country as a stopping point to switch flights for somewhere else;
there is never any indication that Peters intended to ever leave
the airports he was flying into.
: Also, we have to answer the question of why didn't Dr. Peters
: check his sample case as ordinary baggage. All these questions
: are easily answered if Dr. Peters is just what he claims to be.
: He's a scientist on a business trip -- most likely to collect
: samples of a new virus. In fact, Dr. Peters is quite likely
: on his way to collect samples of the very killer virus that
: Cole is searching for.
Ah, there you go again -- if he is going somplace to _collect_
samples then would he forge papers to claim the vials contained
samples? Why would he lie to the airport security guard and say
that the vials contained samples?
And as for what he is "quite likely" going to do... would you
like to give some evidence for this? There is never any
indication that Peters is doing anything of the sort. You might
as well say he was a CIA agent smuggling microfiche to Uzbeckistan
or whever the hell he was going -- there's no evidence of that
either, and it too is totally at odds with the stated facts of
the films, but hey, why let reality get in the way of a great theory.
BTW -- you seem to have conveniently forgotten the fact that
the gestation time of the virus and its first appearances (and
thus its first release dates) are all known to the scientists of
the future. Given that the virus was first released in Philly on
the same day that Peters opened the first vial (hmmm...), and given
that it wasn't _detected_ until several days later -- how is it
that Peters knows about the virus? How can he be leaving on a
trip to _collect_ a virus that nobody (including him, if you assume
he is innocent) knows exists? How would he know, several days
in advance, the _exact_ cities that the first cases _were_going_
to appear in? Is he prescient?
:: Tell me, what other possible motivation could
:: explain Peters' behavior? You've hypothesized that he was travelling
:: in order to _obtain_ biological samples. That means that he lied
:: on his invoices (by claiming the vials weren't empty) and lied
:: to the customs agent, complete with awe-filled voice, about how
:: "I assure you [the vials] are not [empty]". What's his motivation
:: for doing that?
: The vials are empty when he starts his business trip. Dr. Peters
: will need the paper work in order to _import_ the pathogenic material.
Nope, sorry. He _clearly_, in English, states that the vials _already_
contain samples and clearly, in English, responds to the observation
that the vials look empty with the statement "I assure you they are not".
Now I admit I graduated from high school a long time ago and it
has been awhile since I took basic English, but to me that means
that he's saying those vials aren't empty. If he is travelling for
legitimate reasons why wouldn't he just get legit papers? Does he
_enjoy_ going through customs so much that he feels obliged to
lie about the contents of his luggage to make them harder to import?
: The idea that Dr. Peters is releasing a deadly virus is absurd.
: If he intended to infect people, then he would have done so
: *away* from the security guards. Put yourself in the mindset
: of a master-terrorist. Would you risk your suicide mission
: at the obvious checkpoints? Doesn't it make more sense to spread
: the disease in as discreet a manner as possible?
What a flimsy analogy THAT is. Peters is carrying an undetectable
virus, atmospherically dispersed, that has a long gestation period
(several days). As such there is no reason not to release it in
front of the guards. How the heck would they know what was going
on? Were the guards wearing their virus-detecting sunglasses and
I just didn't notice? :)
And of course, were I a 'master terrorist' (whatever the hell that's
supposed to mean) I would want to infect somebody who would be
sure to come into contact with a lot of people, and I would want
to open the virus in a context in which it wouldn't look odd.
Given the fact that checkpoint guards at airports come in close
contact with thousands and thousands of people every day -- people
who then travel all over the world -- and given that a search of
your luggage is a _great_ excuse to demonstrate how 'harmless'
the contents of a vial are without seeming odd, it seems to me
that Peters opened the vial in a near-optimum location.
: If Dr. Peters is truely AWOL from his job at a high security lab
: and given the fact that the police may think that Dr. Peters has
: been kidnapped along with Dr. Goines, then it makes sense to do
: this horrific deed off in a darkly lit bar.
Why are you assuming Peters is AWOL? He probably just took some
vacation time, the same as pretty much everybody else does when
they are planning to take a trip away from work.
And bear in mind that, being an intelligent psycho, Peters wants
to maximize the dispersal of the virus. Widely-scattered major
airports are great places to do this in; it guarantees that
the virus will quickly spread over the entire planet. 'Darkly
lit bars', on the other hand, are not only a lousy place to
start your infection vector -- they are also a place where there
is no convenient excuse to open a test tube and show it to people.
: Dr. Peters only seems like a lunatic if you assume he is a virus
: spreading terrorist. If you accept him as a medical researcher,
: then his actions are all rational.
Correction: if you accept him as a medical researcher while
simultaneously assuming he forges invoices and lies to airport
security for no reason, and if you simultaneously ignore the
rather UNUSUAL coincidence that he appears in each of the
"origin' cities on the exact dates that the virus is known to have
been released, and if you ignore that fact that Goines' lab contained
dangerous viruses... then yes, I suppose he might seem like a rational
scientist.
Sheesh... I just spent half an hour responding to something that
was almost certainly just a troll in the first place. :)
-- Dan
Bryce Utting
Gerthein Boersma (gert...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
>Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Oh, and please enter your name or handle in the relevant box in your
>news program, Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net!
>No offense, all to do with nettiquete and such...
Why on earth should anyone have to? This must be (to coin a phrase not
entirely unrelated to 12 Monkeys) a meaning of the term "netiquette" with
which I have been previously unaware...
This is Usenet. Opinions stand or fall on their strengths, not on
the identity of the poster. And if your site has some weird "no
pseudonyms" policy (not impossible; there must be another extreme in the
continuum that has fingerd-less servers at one end), don't, repeat,
DON'T assume that that extends to the rest of the Net. Not even AOL
(shudder) demands that usernames have real names attached to them.
(And, I guess, an ASCII chocolate fish if anyone works out the
connection of the paraphrase ;)
butting (my real name, fwiw)
--
Bryce Utting http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~butting
the cross before me, the world behind me
no turning back
Bryce Utting
Gerthein Boersma (gert...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
>Well, I gotta admit Jose handing Cole the gun is a little strange...
>here are my explanations:
>
>WHY IT'S A LEMAT: This is a stupid technicality that really isn't
>worth talking about. I do have a theories, but who cares? I don't. The
>theory is simple: it's 2035. Mankind has fled underground. A whole new
>world. Who knows which guns they managed to 'dig up' from above? They
>can't be picky about it. Could have been any kind of gun.
Exactly. Jose could easily have been ripped off and be none the
wiser. Maybe he broke into a house and it happened to be a
collector's; how's he to know any better?
butting
Marc Fleury
but...@cs.waikato.ac.nz (Bryce Utting) wrote:
>Gerthein Boersma (gert...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
>>Oh, and please enter your name or handle in the relevant box in your
>>news program, Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net!
>Why on earth should anyone have to?
>This is Usenet. Opinions stand or fall on their strengths, not on
>the identity of the poster.
"Please enter your name OR HANDLE".
We don't care was Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net's real name is, we
just want a name that we can use. It's a pain in the asphalt to have
to type "Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net" every time you want to refer
to someone.
-- Fleury.
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Bored? Restless? Sorry, can't help ya. But go read my web page! |
| |
| Writing for Comics! http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~lmize1/writing.html |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On 14 Oct 1996 10:08:29 GMT,
but...@cs.waikato.ac.nz (Bryce Utting)
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:Gerthein Boersma (gert...@worldaccess.nl) wrote:
:>Well, I gotta admit Jose handing Cole the gun is a little strange...
:>here are my explanations:
:>
:>WHY IT'S A LEMAT: This is a stupid technicality that really isn't
:>worth talking about. I do have a theories, but who cares? I don't. The
:>theory is simple: it's 2035. Mankind has fled underground. A whole new
:>world. Who knows which guns they managed to 'dig up' from above? They
:>can't be picky about it. Could have been any kind of gun.
:Exactly. Jose could easily have been ripped off and be none the
:wiser. Maybe he broke into a house and it happened to be a
:collector's; how's he to know any better?
The problem is that a genuine LeMat 9-shot revolver (plus 20-gauge center
barrel) are collector's items. There were only a couple thousand made
in the first place.
Here's an article from one of the other newsgroups:
=============== begin included to end of article ============================
Re: movie gun: 12 Monkeys
From Jon <yuko...@marsweb.com>
Organization A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
Date 4 Oct 1996 16:01:33 -0400
Newsgroups rec.guns
Message-ID <533qet$c...@xring.cs.umd.edu>
Sarah Connor wrote:
#
# Having checked current posts and Deja News, it appears that this
# question has not been asked or answered:
#
# What type of revolver is given to and carried by Bruce Willis in
# the airport scene?
#
# The gun's outline looked more like a single action than a modern
# style double. The metal was blue, with wooden stocks, and a lanyard
# swivel at the bottom of the grip. The most distictive feature of
# this revolver is it appears to have a second, larger barrel where one
# expects to find an extractor. A smaller barrel, above the larger one,
# lines up with the wheel, as expected.
#
# Was this gun ever in production, or is it a custom piece?
#
# Simply stated, what the hell wuz that?
#
# A Friend,
# Sarah
What it was was the oddest choice for a handgun I have seen in a long
time. It appeared to be a LeMat revolver. They were used by the
Confederacy in the Civil War.
The cylinder held 9 rounds of .42 caliber ball and a center chamber in
the cylinder that was for one round of shotgun shot. The lower barrel
accomodated the shot. There werent many made and they are prized
collectibles today. At close range that shotgunl barrel must have been
hideous on both ends.
Jon
Gerthein Boersma
I, myself, wrote:
------------
WHY JOSE HANDS [THE GUN] TO COLE:
Here's my theory: Jose is working for the scientists, who can't resist
to try if the past may be mutable afterall; thus, Cole is given the
gun to try it out... This makes sense: they would want to at least try
to stop this guy once, but are 90% sure the past is immutable, so
don't want to risk themselves.
On that note, here's an interesting thought: The scientists now
conclude, and let's assume that they do so correctly, that the past is
immutable. *That*'s why they don't try to stop Peters again, and
*that*'s why things happen(ed) the way they do (did)...
---------------------
I'm surprised you didn't respond to this, "Xiu-man" (uh..will you
please tell us your name..). I thought it was quite an interesting
theory if I do say so myself...
Now for something related yet completly different:
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>Ah... no. When the 12 Monkeys kidnap Goines Sr. he tells his son
>"I've taken myself out of the loop. I don't have access to THE
>VIRUS" (emphasis mine). What, pray tell, is "THE VIRUS", and
>why would Goines take himself out of the security loop simply
>because a crazy woman warned him of impending plague?
Good point! Very good point! The Man (Doc Goines) says: "THE VIRUS!",
and it was a *deadly* virus, or Goines wouldn't have decided to
'better be safe than sorry', as it where (taking himself out of the
loop even though Railly's story must have sounded unbelievable to
him).
This proves Goines & co. were working on a deadly virus and makes it
very very very likely (not that *I* ever doubted it, but "Xiu-man"
did) that the virus that kills the 5 billion people comes out of
Goines' kitchen and 'Peters does his worst'.
About those last four words: Quite some time ago I bought the audio CD
'12 Monkey's: The Soundtrack'. One of the tracks (one of the last
tracks) was called 'Peters does his worst'. That implies Peters did
it. Can we at least agree Gilliam & co. (ie. anyone involved with the
picture) *intended* Peters to be the 'killer' now? (And I'm talking to
"Xiu-man" now, Dan, not to you; I know *you* agree with me).
>Sheesh... I just spent half an hour responding to something that
>was almost certainly just a troll in the first place. :)
>-- Dan
Come on, he keeps the discussion alive! I've only seen this movie once
(gonna rent it as soon as it hits video in this country; the
Netherlands), yet due to this discussion I know it better than any
other I've seen this year. Which is fitting, since it's the best movie
I've seen all year.
However, "Xiu-Man" should stop nitpicking things like the LeMat. And,
as to Peters being innocent or guilty, I believe Dan and I win. ;-) He
did it! Can we now close this case? I must admit I found it somewhat
constructed in the first place.
Tom Ritchford
In article <dbongardD...@netcom.com> dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
[snip]
>Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it can't
>happen. Children have, in fact, entered autistic states due to
>childhood trauma (although 'Tommy' is still bogus so far as I
>know, since actual blindness cannot be psychologically inducedso
>far as I know).
It most certainly can -- I read a fascinating article by Oliver
Sacks ("The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat," "Awakenings")
about such a trauma.
Mind you, the case involved was someone who had been blind since
birth and had his sight restored. It worked for a while but he
"overloaded" and his sight went away, even though the original
cause of his blindness hadn't returned.
Still, hysterical blindness, deafness, loss of usage of limbs
and the like do exist...
--
/t
Tom Ritchford t...@mvision.com
Verge's "Little Idiot" -- Music for the mentally peculiar.
1-800-WEIRDOS http://www.weirdos.com/verge
Tom Ritchford
Love this hopelessly complicated thread!
In article <53rrqt$m...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net writes:
[snip]
>The idea that Dr. Peters is releasing a deadly virus is absurd.
>If he intended to infect people, then he would have done so
>*away* from the security guards. Put yourself in the mindset
>of a master-terrorist. Would you risk your suicide mission
>at the obvious checkpoints? Doesn't it make more sense to spread
>the disease in as discreet a manner as possible? If Dr. Peters
>is truely AWOL from his job at a high security lab and given
>the fact that the police may think that Dr. Peters has been kidnapped
>along with Dr. Goines, then it makes sense to do this horrific
>deed off in a darkly lit bar.
>
>Dr. Peters only seems like a lunatic if you assume he is a virus
>spreading terrorist. If you accept him as a medical researcher,
>then his actions are all rational.
It's very hard to reconcile this with the expression on Peters'
face when the vial is opened... an expression of fear and relief.
And he stops complaining at that instant... if he were carrying
sterile empty vials, he'd be complaining MUCH harder at that
point, since the guard would have ruined his sample...
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:15:22 GMT,
gert...@worldaccess.nl (Gerthein Boersma)
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:I, myself, wrote:
:------------
:WHY JOSE HANDS [THE GUN] TO COLE:
:Here's my theory: Jose is working for the scientists, who can't resist
:to try if the past may be mutable afterall; thus, Cole is given the
:gun to try it out... This makes sense: they would want to at least try
:to stop this guy once, but are 90% sure the past is immutable, so
:don't want to risk themselves.
:On that note, here's an interesting thought: The scientists now
:conclude, and let's assume that they do so correctly, that the past is
:immutable. *That*'s why they don't try to stop Peters again, and
:*that*'s why things happen(ed) the way they do (did)...
:---------------------
:I'm surprised you didn't respond to this, "Xiu-man" (uh..will you
:please tell us your name..). I thought it was quite an interesting
:theory if I do say so myself...
OK. OK. Here's my opinion of that theory. Can history be changed?
No -- unless you have a time machine. Then you could change history
and I guess you could deal yourself out of existence. Eventually,
the only stable universes are those in which time machines are never
used to destroy the universe. Think of it like rewinding a VCR and
taping some different scenes into Casablanca.
If a scientist is smart enough to invent a time machine then he or
she should also be smart enough to avoid tinkering himself/herself
out of existence. The big problem is that in every new universe,
the scientists would not be aware of their hideous mistake in the
previous universe.
Think of it like a Hindu. There's a Yuga (or is it Yugo?) or two
or three or four and then Shiva destroys the universe (sort of an
Apocalypse). But then Brahma creates a new universe and Vishnu
preserves it until Shiva destroys _that_ one.
The idea of a firey end of the world was held by the Greek and
Roman Stoic philosophers long before X-tiany encorporated the
concept.
:Now for something related yet completly different:
:dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
:>Ah... no. When the 12 Monkeys kidnap Goines Sr. he tells his son
:>"I've taken myself out of the loop. I don't have access to THE
:>VIRUS" (emphasis mine). What, pray tell, is "THE VIRUS", and
:>why would Goines take himself out of the security loop simply
:>because a crazy woman warned him of impending plague?
:Good point! Very good point! The Man (Doc Goines) says: "THE VIRUS!",
:and it was a *deadly* virus, or Goines wouldn't have decided to
:'better be safe than sorry', as it where (taking himself out of the
:loop even though Railly's story must have sounded unbelievable to
:him).
"Torture me if you must. I don't have access to the virus!"
The story is dropping into farce when Kathryn and James tryst
in the whore hotel. I could try to argue that Dr. Goines might
be talking about a different virus. I'll concede the point in
favor of a very special pathogen that may be the one which
Cole is searching for.
This is wasting our time. I've watched a dozen or so B&W movies
from the 40's and 50's that I'd love to discuss. Look for me
over in rec.arts.movies.past-films.
:This proves Goines & co. were working on a deadly virus and makes it
:very very very likely (not that *I* ever doubted it, but "Xiu-man"
:did) that the virus that kills the 5 billion people comes out of
:Goines' kitchen and 'Peters does his worst'.
I hope Dr. Goines apologized to the human race before he died.
:About those last four words: Quite some time ago I bought the audio CD
:'12 Monkey's: The Soundtrack'. One of the tracks (one of the last
:tracks) was called 'Peters does his worst'. That implies Peters did
:it. Can we at least agree Gilliam & co. (ie. anyone involved with the
:picture) *intended* Peters to be the 'killer' now? (And I'm talking to
:"Xiu-man" now, Dan, not to you; I know *you* agree with me).
The soundtrack -- that's the clincher! But seriously, I just finished
watching Nocturne (1946) with George Raft as an interesting L.A.
detective who comes off pretty much like cross between Sargeant Friday
on Badge 714 and Dirty Harry. I used to love that TV show (Badge 714)
even though Jack Webb was a reactionary and all. I loved the march music
at the beginning and the "hammer" thing at the end and all that clipped
speech in between -- the voice overs -- the "Just the facts, Mam" dialogue.
Well, as I was starting to say about Nocturne (1946) -- it's a
88 minute film and it has a mild resemblance to Laura (1944).
But this detective (George Raft) is sort of a bad-boy. He's not
evil but he does push people into swimming pools and steals people's
mail and generally does a lot of unprofessional stuff that gets
him suspended. Still, with the aid of his mother, he figures out
how the murder occurred and who was in the room at the time.
(spoiler ahead)
(spoiler ahead)
(spoiler ahead)
He confronts the person who he thinks did it but THE PIANO PLAYER
CONFESSES! Yes!
I have to admit that having the real murderer interrupt the detective
and confess is hokey but it's still a good film.
:>Sheesh... I just spent half an hour responding to something that
:>was almost certainly just a troll in the first place. :)
:>-- Dan
:Come on, he keeps the discussion alive! I've only seen this movie once
:(gonna rent it as soon as it hits video in this country; the
:Netherlands), yet due to this discussion I know it better than any
:other I've seen this year. Which is fitting, since it's the best movie
:I've seen all year.
:However, "Xiu-Man" should stop nitpicking things like the LeMat. And,
:as to Peters being innocent or guilty, I believe Dan and I win. ;-) He
:did it! Can we now close this case? I must admit I found it somewhat
:constructed in the first place.
Monekys Go Home.
Dan Bongard
Tom Ritchford (t...@mvision.com) wrote:
: In article <dbongardD...@netcom.com> dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
: [snip]
: >Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it can't
: >happen. Children have, in fact, entered autistic states due to
: >childhood trauma (although 'Tommy' is still bogus so far as I
: >know, since actual blindness cannot be psychologically inducedso
: >far as I know).
: It most certainly can -- I read a fascinating article by Oliver
: Sacks ("The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat," "Awakenings")
: about such a trauma.
I have, indeed, read that book. There were cases of people who
claimed to be blind, yet when tested were capable of sight.
The causes of this were neurological, not psychological -- all
such patients had brain damage which prevented them from
consciously being aware of what they were seeing. Brain damage
can do some very strange things to the human mind (well, duh :))
but I wouldn't call it 'psychologically induced'.
-- Dan
Bryce Utting
Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
>We don't care was Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net's real name is, we
>just want a name that we can use. It's a pain in the asphalt to have
>to type "Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net" every time you want to refer
>to someone.
Well certainly, but I'd have thought just X. on its own would suffice.
(I think that's how I keep it in my head, too - I've never managed to
figure out how to pronounce it, and if I try from memory I break down
after about three letters. So I should admit bias, I -like- it.)
Though of course, I've never had the need to quote it outside of a
quote line, in which case slrn takes care of things quite nicely
anyways :)
cheers, butting
Tom Ritchford
>Tom Ritchford (t...@mvision.com) wrote:
>: In article <dbongardD...@netcom.com> dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
>: [snip]
>: >Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it can't
>: >happen. Children have, in fact, entered autistic states due to
>: >childhood trauma (although 'Tommy' is still bogus so far as I
>: >know, since actual blindness cannot be psychologically inducedso
>: >far as I know).
>
>: It most certainly can -- I read a fascinating article by Oliver
>: Sacks ("The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat," "Awakenings")
>: about such a trauma.
[you snipped important information here!]
>
>I have, indeed, read that book. There were cases of people who
>claimed to be blind, yet when tested were capable of sight.
>The causes of this were neurological, not psychological -- all
>such patients had brain damage which prevented them from
>consciously being aware of what they were seeing. Brain damage
>can do some very strange things to the human mind (well, duh :))
>but I wouldn't call it 'psychologically induced'.
I did NOT claim that this was an article in either of these books...
it appeared in the New York Times Magazine about three years ago.
As I wrote, and you deleted, it was about a man who was born
blind (or blinded at a very early age) and later regained
his sight through a new operation.
Though it worked well for a while, he found himself getting
more and more disoriented and his blindness returned, even
though the physiological cause of the blindness did not.
Testing showed that the optic nerve was relaying the signals
to the brain, yet the cortex was not being notified. (I'm a
little hazy on how that worked... I could be wrong there...)
There was no evidence of any neurological damage however.
This was entirely a reaction to the overload condition.
Sorry for the testy tone -- however, you edited out the
corroborating details and then claimed I was wrong...
Gerthein Boersma
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
<snipped: the gun theory)
>:I'm surprised you didn't respond to this, "Xiu-man" (uh..will you
>:please tell us your name..). I thought it was quite an interesting
>:theory if I do say so myself...
>OK. OK. Here's my opinion of that theory. Can history be changed?
>No -- unless you have a time machine. Then you could change history
>and I guess you could deal yourself out of existence. Eventually,
>the only stable universes are those in which time machines are never
>used to destroy the universe. Think of it like rewinding a VCR and
>taping some different scenes into Casablanca.
<snipped: how Xiu thinks time-travel works>
I meant: MY theory considering the gun (the scientists making at least
one attempt to change history). NOT the time-travel theory. In 12M the
timetravel theory is 'the future's history' (if you contest that as
you did the fact that Peters did it, then please accept it for the
sake of the argument). No offense, but how you feel Time-Travel works
(if it works at all, BTW) does not interest me.
On my theory: I thought it was a plausible explanation of the
gun-thing. What sayeth thou?
>"Torture me if you must. I don't have access to the virus!"
>The story is dropping into farce when Kathryn and James tryst
>in the whore hotel. I could try to argue that Dr. Goines might
>be talking about a different virus. I'll concede the point in
>favor of a very special pathogen that may be the one which
>Cole is searching for.
>This is wasting our time. I've watched a dozen or so B&W movies
>from the 40's and 50's that I'd love to discuss. Look for me
>over in rec.arts.movies.past-films.
Sorry, I'm not a big 'past-film fan'. Sci-fi's more my kind of thing.
But I'm glad you've conceded something on the subject of 12M. I'm
getting a little tired of discussing it too, though. I will remain my
favorite sci-fi movie of 1996 and possibly one of my all-time
favorites though..
>The soundtrack -- that's the clincher!
Okay, okay... it's pretty weak. I'm just very certain Gilliam & co
intented Peters to be the Bad Guy.
>Monekys Go Home.
If this is marks the end of the ongoing 12M discussion, or at least
your part in it, then let me say it's been interesting and indeed fun.
You are obviously a 'movie connaisseur'. Maybe I'll see ya around the
net sometime.
Dan Bongard
Tom Ritchford (t...@mvision.com) wrote:
: I did NOT claim that this was an article in either of these books...
: it appeared in the New York Times Magazine about three years ago.
My apologies on that... I misread your post.
: As I wrote, and you deleted, it was about a man who was born
: blind (or blinded at a very early age) and later regained
: his sight through a new operation.
: Though it worked well for a while, he found himself getting
: more and more disoriented and his blindness returned, even
: though the physiological cause of the blindness did not.
: Testing showed that the optic nerve was relaying the signals
: to the brain, yet the cortex was not being notified. (I'm a
: little hazy on how that worked... I could be wrong there...)
: There was no evidence of any neurological damage however.
: This was entirely a reaction to the overload condition.
Cases like the above, however, are still generally classified
as "neurological" so far as I can remember; a 'psychological'
problem would be one in which all parts of the brain were
receiving the correct information and yet invalid 'output'
was still being generated. Cases of "overload" generally
stem from long-unused paths not being physically able to
deal with the sudden increase in usage, and that sounds like
what you're describing here...
Of course discussions like this are always a bit arbitrary,
since ALL psychological problems are neurological if you
look 'low' enough (though that's a bit like saying that all
programming bugs can be explained in terms of electron flow).
-- Dan
Maria Vitale
Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: : dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
: : :Both of you seem to be overlooking the rather obvious point that JOSE
: : :quite probably heard what Railly said. She wasn't exactly making an
: : :effort to not be overheard.
: : Nice try but no cigar. Jose shows up with a gun and presses the
: : gun on Cole. Jose has orders. Cole is supposed to shoot someone.
: : That doesn't make much sense given the "immutable past" theory.
I've stayed out of this for a while now but I've also managed to
view the film several times since my last posting on 12M. I still
fail to see how anyone could ever miss any of the points that were
clearly presented in the film. But, here I go again...
: Why not? It seems to me that your theory is based on a few assumptions
: that are obviously wrong:
: (a): That the scientists have records of what happened in the past.
: (b): That they are trying to change things.
: How is it 'changing the past' to give Cole a gun? What is changing?
: Note that Jose never mentions a word about who Cole is supposed
: to shoot... which suggests to me that the scientists might just
: be setting him up to be killed.
Exactly. They know about Cole's "dream". They realize, even if he
doesn't, that he is supposed to die on that day and they also need
for him to go through with it instead of pursuing his idea of running
off with Railly. He was supposed to try, of course, (the wig, the
clothes, the moustache) but he was never meant to go through with
it. That's part of the "immutable past" so many people seem to be
hung up on. BTW, much has been made about the awkward gun that Jose
gave to Cole. If you watch the "dream" sequences more closely you'd
see that the gun is an exact match and therefore makes perfect sense
since that's the way it was meant to happen. Stop thinking linearly.
: Don't forget that Cole _always_ died the way he did, gun in hand.
: The first thing we SEE in the movie is Cole's childhood memory
: of seeing his adult self get shot, gun in hand.
Exactly!
: : Jose also claims that the leaders of 2035-world have "just put it
: : together" and Jose expresses regret that they hadn't figured
: : it out earlier. That implies that the leaders of 2035 have solved
: : the puzzle. In particular, they have solved the puzzle *before*
: : getting a report from Jose concerning the events that follow
: : with Cole and the gun and Cole chasing after Dr. Peters.
: Ah, no... you're extremely confused. Jose's remark about "putting
: it together" refers to the _physical_ act of reconstructing
: the _tape_ from the voice mail system. It is mentioned during the
: film that the tape is damaged and is only slowly being constructed.
: This is why Cole hears Railly's 'joke message' "before" she
: actually records it, but doesn't hear his own voice. The scientists
: indicate that they aren't done restoring the tape. When Jose says
: they "just put it together" he means that they just put the TAPE
: together, got Cole's message about never coming back, and sent
: agents to the airport to find out what the hell was going on.
Correct again, but it also means that they may have only just figured
out about Cole's dream as well and realizing that he is never meant
to leave the airport but, thanks to Railly, identify Dr. Peters instead
and then be killed, they rushed to send Jose with the gun to meet up
with Cole.
: Jose never indicates anything one way or the other about them having
: figured out who the "real" virus-carrier is. You might also want to
: bear in mind that time is quite literally on the scientist's side...
: they have an indeterminate amount of time to use OTHER agents to
: figure out who REALLY carried the virus, even if Jose didn't
: overhear Railly. So of course the scientist's presence on the plane
: isn't necessarily because of anything Railly did, and certainly
: has no bearing on anything Cole did -- when you get right down to
: it Cole's only contribution to the "whodunit" search is his
: bringing Railly in on the hunt. :)
Yes and no. Cole and Railly are not only instrumental in bringing
about the discovery of Dr. Peters as the instigator of the virus'
release but they are also crucial to the entire timeline of the
virus. If the past had had Railly die in a traffic accident in 1989
or have Cole die of a broken neck from a fall as a child before
1996, the virus may have never been released by Peters. The historical
timeline dictated that Cole's abrupt appearance as an adult in 1990
and his initial meeting with Railly was all pre-ordained. They had
to meet and also meet up with Jeffrey Goines. They three are inter-
connected. One influences the other. All three then influence the
path succeeding events follow. His father was already working on
that virus with Peters and the other scientists. Peters already
had a fatalistic viewpoint concerning humanity. Was it his meeting
with Railly at the book-signing that sparked the initial idea? Would
Railly have even written or researched that book had she not met
Cole 6 years earlier? Playing the "What If" game can be fun but
my point is both Cole and Railly were vital to the virus' release
on the world. The scientists knew that and therefore pursued their
investigation along those lines.
: : Patch up your theory a bit and I'll be glad to read it.
: You're seeing holes where they didn't exist; watch the film again
: and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I somehow doubt that would help some people. The more I view the film,
the clearer it is to me. But for some folks I think they only just
continue to either add or remove things where they should not and that
only adds to their confusion.
: :: BTW: what kind of an idiot could possibly think that Peters isn't
: :: the person who started the plague?
: : It's an exercise in analytical thinking.
: ['analytical' thinking snipped]
Okay, avoiding any name-calling, try this on for size:
You're watching a film. It states clearly that a virus has been released
which nearly wiped out humanity... 5 billion people. Nice round number, no?
Then they state they don't have a means of eradicating the virus because
it has since mutated and they need information on the pure strain in
order to create a cure, an antidote, a vaccine... whatever.
They have bits and pieces but nothing conclusive to go on. They do figure
out that Cole may have something to do with it all (due to his "dream"
perhaps?) and send him back in time. Now what about the "mistakes" of
sending him to 1990 instead of 1996? Or how about when both Cole and
Jose ended up in 1917? Well, neither were really mistakes. They were
supposed to happen because they both DID happen in the past. Railly
could not have written her book and researched it as she had, specifically
using that bit about Jose in 1917 and his prophecy about the end of the
world and his search for the pure virus if the scientists had not in
fact sent both he and Cole back to that time. Ditto for Cole's appearance
in 1990.
Back to the virus and Peters: Had Railly not written the book, it might
not have leant credence or at least some warped sense of validation to
Peters' own belief that humanity is destroying the world and doesn't
deserve to exist any longer. He must have felt like that for a long
time but having Railly write such a book decrying the state of man
and analyzing the current down swirl of humanity, may just have given
him the impetus to think that perhaps it was time for humanity to get
a permanent wake-up call.
As for watching the film and coming to the conclusion that Peters is
the one responsible for the virus' release, what can I say? If you
watch the film and do not try to embellish it with any sort of personal
prejudice, I think it is clear enough. Humanity is out of control, as
far as Peters is concerned. He has direct access to a powerful and
deadly virus which he knows if taken outside of the controlled environment
of the laboratory, can and will destroy mankind. Had the survivors not
fled underground, they too would have perished. Plan complete. Kill them
all. That's the plot. What do we see in the film? We're given the initial
idea of the Army of the 12 Monkeys and Jeffrey Goines but that turns out
to be false -- small analogy with the boy in the well story. Everyone
was concerned for the boy but it was only a hoax. Well the scientists
had little to go on except for the sign saying "We Did It!" but the
A12M. But that was wrong. This isn't a whodunnit. Once you realize that
Goines wasn't responsible and then you see Peters at the airport, you
see that he's one who will release the virus. To think otherwise is to
bring more to the film than is called for.
Seeing him open one of the vials adds more credence to the conclusion
as well as finding out his itinerary. The scientists knew of the virus'
spread to major cities around the world. They made Cole memorize it,
remember? Then you hear the same cities mentioned at the airport as
Peters is picking up his tickets. Why not accept these two events as
presented for what they are??
: So I suppose it is just a coincidence that a known apocalypse nut,
: employed in lab that engineers dangerous viruses, just _happens_
: to be taking an airline flight to the exact cities where the
: plague started, on the exact days that the plague started, while
: carrying 'biological samples' that he then (in violation of basic
: rules _any_ lab personnel would know) opens up and exposes to
: people nearby? Tell me, what other possible motivation could
Besides, think he could have gotten past security if he'd told them his
plans for spreading a deadly virus to anyone who comes in contact with
it? Of course he'd lie and say they were biological samples. He'd have
no problem obtaining such papers and falsifying them. He must have made
many such trips in the past.
: explain Peters' behavior? You've hypothesized that he was travelling
: in order to _obtain_ biological samples. That means that he lied
: on his invoices (by claiming the vials weren't empty) and lied
: to the customs agent, complete with awe-filled voice, about how
: "I assure you [the vials] are not [empty]". What's his motivation
: for doing that?
He's getting off on it. He knows exactly what he's doing and knows
that he's just set the thing in motion. Many people will die at this
one airport and he knows that he's responsible for it. A madman will
with an insane plan has just had his first taste at playing God.
: Here's a new tool of analytical thinking for you: Occam's Razor.
Again, perhaps people do not truly grasp the idea of Occam's Razor
at all. They continue to view the film in their own terms. So be it.
Maria.
--
... ... ...
::: ::: ::: :::
...... ... ...... :::... :::. ..... ... ... :::
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
::: ::: ::: `::.::: ::: ::: `::.::' `::.::' `::.:.::' `::.
... :::
`::.::' E-mail: nigh...@walrus.com
Maria Vitale
: >Why not? It seems to me that your theory is based on a few assumptions
: >that are obviously wrong:
: >(a): That the scientists have records of what happened in the past.
: >(b): That they are trying to change things.
: >How is it 'changing the past' to give Cole a gun? What is changing?
: >Note that Jose never mentions a word about who Cole is supposed
: >to shoot... which suggests to me that the scientists might just
: >be setting him up to be killed.
: >Don't forget that Cole _always_ died the way he did, gun in hand.
: >The first thing we SEE in the movie is Cole's childhood memory
: >of seeing his adult self get shot, gun in hand.
: Well, I gotta admit Jose handing Cole the gun is a little strange...
: here are my explanations:
: WHY IT'S A LEMAT: This is a stupid technicality that really isn't
: worth talking about. I do have a theories, but who cares? I don't. The
: theory is simple: it's 2035. Mankind has fled underground. A whole new
: world. Who knows which guns they managed to 'dig up' from above? They
: can't be picky about it. Could have been any kind of gun.
No it couldn't. Watch the film again, only pay closer attention this
time to the "dream" sequences which Cole has. It is the same gun.
: WHY JOSE HANDS IT TO COLE:
: Here's my theory: Jose is working for the scientists, who can't resist
: to try if the past may be mutable afterall; thus, Cole is given the
: gun to try it out... This makes sense: they would want to at least try
: to stop this guy once, but are 90% sure the past is immutable, so
: don't want to risk themselves.
Again, no. They are insuring (there's that word again!) that the past
follows it's own path. If a thing happened in such and such a way, they
must see that it does so again. While it may be interesting to view the
film and say that travelling into the past means that you should be able
to change something, no matter how trivial, but the film presents the
idea that the past is immutable, unalterable. Given that you then have
to accept the following: Nothing anyone who travelled back in time did
was any different than it would have been. Railly has a feeling that
she'd met Cole before and she had. Even in 1990, their first meeting,
she still felt as though she knew Cole. Why? Because she had met him
in 1990. Her recollection was based on time, in a circular sense. Time,
as presented in the film, is ongoing, and most definitely not linear
in any sense of the word. Given that then Cole's action of removing
his teeth would have also occurred in the original timeline and sending
Jose back with the gun once they received Cole's last report would be
a necessary part of the timeline too since Cole must have the gun in
order to be killed. The pieces had to be "recreated" so that the whole
could then be understood. Cole did not understand any of that. He was
given orders which seemed to be contradicted by Jose at the end but
actually they weren't. Cole had to identify Peters. Railly was necessary
for that. Jose witnessed it and would be able to report back so that
Jones could then make contact with Peters on the plane. But Cole's
death also had to occur. Hence the Jose and the gun.
: On that note, here's an interesting thought: The scientists now
: conclude, and let's assume that they do so correctly, that the past is
: immutable. *That*'s why they don't try to stop Peters again, and
: *that*'s why things happen(ed) the way they do (did)...
Exactly!
: I still don't understand why "Xiu-man" (sorry 'bout that, but I need a
: way to refer to the guy) doesn't believe Peters to be the bad guy. I
: have only one thing against this: it's such a coincidence...
: But it's no more of a coincidence then the showing of that WW1
: picture, by none other than Dr. Railly (Stowe)... Sure, it gives the
: impression that the world of 12M is a 4x4x4' box where everyone of
: importance has something to do with the other, but this also works as
: a stylistic choice: Cole is sent back to investigate the
: virus-spreading. First target: A12M and Jeffrey Goins. This is of
: course a miss, but it makes the movie far more exciting that it is a
: *near*-hit, because Peters is directly related to Goins (he's his
: fathers assistant).
Again, this is correct but it also makes sense when you view the film
as a jigsaw puzzle where the scientists only have bits and pieces in
front of them but absolutely no frame of reference for what the whole
assembled picture will look like. You have a bit of blue here (A12M)
which you take to represent the sky (virus) but it could also be some
kind of water. So you send Cole and others to find out more, find more
pieces, confirm or refute the sky-water idea. Yes they might have known
(and probably did know) from the beginning that Cole was crucial to
the entire timeline of the virus. Would it had benefitted Cole to know
any of that? Probably not. Was it only a plot twist to make the story
more interesting? I don't think so. I do think all of the events was
vitally linked. These people's lives were the focal point for the virus'
spread and its devastation.
: Besides, the scientists could have had reason to believe it was Dr.
: Goins' virus that killed humanity. They then, based perhaps on the
: grafitti & such, targeted A12M and Jeffrey. They were almost right: it
: was Goins' virus, but it was his unassuming assistant, not his son.
From some of the headlines shown in the earlier part of the film they
must have had some idea about Goines but it must have been known that
Jeffrey's father was not responsible. Since Peters was such a low-key
kind of guy, at least that's the way he was presented in the film (Goines
was the reknown virologist, it was his lab and Peters was only an assistant)
not much would have been known about him. Had Railly not seen the photo
in the paper at the airport and recognized him from the book signing,
they still may not have known of Peters. The initial mistake regarding
the A12M came about, if I'm not mistaken, from Cole's first volunteer
mission in the film when he was sent above ground to gather samples and
found that sign the Army had left ("We Did It!) with their symbol of
the monkeys. Conclusion: The Army may have been responsible, so go find
out more about it. Far-fetched? No. Learning about Goines brought Cole in
contact with Railly which brought her in contact with Peters and later
on the phone call with Dr. Goines, etc. All things are connected. Not
one coincidence.
: Apart from some coincidences (that are sometimes plot-devices that I
: didn't find too annoying, and sometimes stylistic elements that work)
: I don't find anything wrong with Dr. Peters being the Bad Guy.
Which?? Please elaborate.
: As for the Voice: Psychosis is my best guess...perhaps it's a normal
: result of time-travel.. or a paranormal result: maybe it's the 'spirit
: of time' talking..;-). I dunno...
Ah, that voice. It even appears in the novel based on the film. I read
it hoping that it might shed some more light on that voice but it didn't.
Interesting to note that the scientist Jones, in the book, is a man and
not a woman.
Oh and for anyone who thinks that the scientists did not know about
Cole's "dream", please read the book. There are scenes in which Cole
relives the "dream" as he is being interrogated by the scientists after
having returned from a "volunteer" mission on the surface.
FYI: 12 MONKEYS by Elizabeth Hand
Based on the motion picture screenplay
by David Peoples & Janet Peoples
Harper Paperbacks - Movie Tie-in
ISBN: 0-06-105658-8
Regards,
Concrete Skull
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
> I'm still not sure whether Jose arrived in
> the WW1 battlefield before or after giving Cole the gun in
> the airport.
Does it matter, really? You pick such odd things to dwell on. I don't
see how that has anything to do with the big picture. Sure, it's mildly
interesting to debate, but it hardly has much bearing on the film...
> I can't understand how Cole can walk around
> for several days with a WW1 bullet in his thigh.
I wouldn't think this is impossible. Maybe it is. I dunno. Maybe it's
just Hollywood hyperbole. Again, tho, who cares? Is it so fantastic
that it's inconceivable or somehow adds confusion to the film?
> I can't
> understand why Cole is in Baltimore 1996 when he should have
> been sent to Philadelphia 1996.
The scientists' aim sucks. I think they explained that pretty well.
> Also, I thought that adding
> the Hitchcock Festival was additional baggage.
OK, so you didn't like the references, but it doesn't confuse the film in
any way. Would it have changed anything if they were at Kung Fu movie
festival...well, aside from making a much less interesting and thoughtful
reference...
> Plus, how
> did the pair of fugitives escape from the hourly hotel room
> with the police at the door?
Ummm...out the WINDOW? Yeesh.
> I admit to feeling confused.
I know now for sure that yer just arguing to argue. While you might
argue that some of these things were unrealistic or that you didn't like
them, they hardly added any CONFUSION to the film, which was your whole
point in this discussion.
None of these things would lead to a "ponderous plot". You might not have
been able to suspend disbelief for them (it all seems extremely nit-picky
to me, but that's just me), but that's a different matter entirely.
vph
Suzanne Archibald
> On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
> > I'm still not sure whether Jose arrived in
> > the WW1 battlefield before or after giving Cole the gun in
> > the airport.
>
When he arrives at the airport Jose's face is badly scarred, and it
looks
like it's been healed a while, I'd guess that he'd spent a few months in
the future after the battlefield.
> > I can't understand how Cole can walk around
> > for several days with a WW1 bullet in his thigh.
>
Its not impossible, people occasionally do it when they have to,
remember
he did appear to be in a lot of pain.
Suzanne
Sheila
Didn't he shift through time, so that those couple of days could really
have been only minutes instead of days.
Sheila
Concrete Skull
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) say:
> : As for the Voice: Psychosis is my best guess...perhaps it's a normal
> : result of time-travel.. or a paranormal result: maybe it's the 'spirit
> : of time' talking..;-). I dunno...
I would have accepted any of these things if it weren't the same voice as
the bum who Railly and Cole meet. If the voice were ONLY in his head,
then it could be easily written off. And we know the bum is real,
because Railly saw him and because he had info that Cole did not (the
tooth thing), but why does he pretend to (or actually not) recognize
Railly at the end?
Mmph.
On 21 Oct 1996, Maria Vitale say:
> Oh and for anyone who thinks that the scientists did not know about
> Cole's "dream", please read the book.
The book is cheating. If it isn't in the movie, I don't consider it fair
game. That said, it is pretty interesting that they knew about the dream in
the book...
vph
Suzanne Archibald
Sheila wrote:
> Didn't he shift through time, so that those couple of days could really
> have been only minutes instead of days.
>
> Sheila
The days quote is referring to the time from him kidnapping Dr Railly to
her
removing the bullet (in the woods). While I'd agree it wasn't a short
time,
I'd say it was no more than a few hours or a day or so.
Suzanne
Maria Vitale
Concrete Skull (j...@paris-gw.cs.miami.edu) wrote:
: dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) say:
: Mmph.
Actually, it really isn't. Most novelizations done from movies tend to
embellish and bring things to the story which did not exist originally
in the film. I only meant for those people who continue to have such
problems with understanding and accepting what their eyes and ears have
seen in the movie to just consider reading the book. Then perhaps they
could satisfy themselves as to what really happened instead of letting
their imaginations run wild with all sorts of ideas which were in no
way represented by Gilliam or the writers.
mlv
]\antar
On 10-22-96 16:17, j...@paris-gw.cs.miami.edu mumbled some nonsense
about 12 Monkeys: the "puke factor" to All...
> I'm still not sure whether Jose arrived in
> the WW1 battlefield before or after giving Cole the gun in
> the airport.
After.. Jose has scars from the shrapnel wound..
Personally, I think giving the gun to Cole may have been Jose's
idea; he says "what were you thinking? You were a hero, you got a
pardon and everything, then you come back here and f*** around with
your teeth?" and then hands him the gun and says "here.. you got one
more chance to be a hero." The scientists say it's impossible to
change the past, but Jose may not believe that; he may have decided
to hand Cole the gun (possibly acquired in a half-jump like Cole's
jump to WWI -- he was sent back, hit WWI for a minute and a half,
then on to 1996 like planned) in the hopes that Cole, his friend,
might change things and not be in hot water with the scientists
after all... 'Course, this is just speculation..
'Course, if you want an unpleasant theory, then the scientists
may have planned Cole's death all along.. Notice how the scientist
who's dropped into the plan next to Peters (the assistant) opens
the conversation with a line, perfectly designed to get on his
good side (into his apocalyptic delusion), about the "insanity"
of the world, using the shootout as an example... Of course,
this makes the scientists look FAR more than a little callous!
> I can't understand how Cole can walk around
> for several days with a WW1 bullet in his thigh.
ja> I wouldn't think this is impossible. Maybe it is. I dunno. Maybe
ja> it's just Hollywood hyperbole. Again, tho, who cares? Is it so
ja> fantastic that it's inconceivable or somehow adds confusion to the
ja> film?
According to witnesses, the pirate Blackbeard took 4 gunshots and
over a dozen stab wounds from a rapier before he died.. 'Course, he
wasn't any ordinary fellow, but neither is Cole; note the fight with
the rapists, the orderlies, and the unseen fight with five police
officers..
> I can't
> understand why Cole is in Baltimore 1996 when he should have
> been sent to Philadelphia 1996.
ja> The scientists' aim sucks. I think they explained that pretty well.
"Science ain't an exact science with these clowns!"
Jeremy "Get outta my chair!" Shannon - ]\\an...@42.gigo.com
Butthead: "Tattoos are cool."
Beavis : "Yeah, I wish I was born with one."
Butthead: "You're not born with tattoos, dumbass. You get them
when you join the navy."
<> NautesavKijtaa v193.851 .... Category: Beavis & Butthead
--
: Fidonet: ]\\antar 1:203/42 .. speaking for only myself.
: Internet: ]\\an...@42.gigo.com
Norman Haerens
In article <804_961...@gigo.com> ]\\an...@42.gigo.com (]\\antar)
writes:
I have a question. If you travel to the past, get shot and then come
back to the present, how can the bullet show up as old ? It should look
new, shouldn't it, or like a very recent imitation of an old bullet.
Norman Haerens
Mountain, Ontario, Canada
caljohn
Concrete Skull wrote:
>
> dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) say:
> > : As for the Voice: Psychosis is my best guess...perhaps it's a normal
> > : result of time-travel.. or a paranormal result: maybe it's the 'spirit
> > : of time' talking..;-). I dunno...
>
> I would have accepted any of these things if it weren't the same voice as
> the bum who Railly and Cole meet. If the voice were ONLY in his head,
> then it could be easily written off. And we know the bum is real,
> because Railly saw him and because he had info that Cole did not (the
> tooth thing), but why does he pretend to (or actually not) recognize
> Railly at the end?
>
> Mmph.
>
> On 21 Oct 1996, Maria Vitale say:
> > Oh and for anyone who thinks that the scientists did not know about
> > Cole's "dream", please read the book.
>
> The book is cheating. If it isn't in the movie, I don't consider it fair
> game. That said, it is pretty interesting that they knew about the dream in
> the book...
>
What about time travel? Movies like Time after Time. Somewhere in
time....
BB
>the conversation with a line, perfectly designed to get on his
>good side (into his apocalyptic delusion), about the "insanity"
>of the world, using the shootout as an example... Of course,
>this makes the scientists look FAR more than a little callous!
While reading post in this thread (but before I read the above), it
suddenenly hit me to wonder about the female scientist. There are all
these posts about the gun and Jose, but none about her.
Until now, I assumed that she happened to sit next to Peters by
coincedence. Maybe it's stupidity that didn't let me see the more
obvious conclusion that she transported into the past to met Peters to
get the info they need on the pure virus. Sort of like a tag-team
approach: Cole pinpointed who spread the virus, and then she books
herself on the plane to take it to the next step, now that Cole has
"fulfilled" his part in the quest for the cure.
So I would have to say that the scientist *were* callous because they
let Cole die even though they had what they wanted. The lady had to
have been in the plane *before* Cole was shot, and probably even
before Jose came back. And at the minimum she had to have arranged to
ge a ticket an hour or so ahead of time, assuming the flight wasn't
already totally booked. I really wish the screenwriter was here to
elaborate. Maybe someone who read the novel can.
BB
BB
]\\an...@42.gigo.com (]\\antar) wrote:
>Notice how the scientist
>who's dropped into the plan[e] next to Peters (the assistant) opens
>the conversation with a line, perfectly designed to get on his
>good side (into his apocalyptic delusion), about the "insanity"
>of the world, using the shootout as an example... Of course,
>this makes the scientists look FAR more than a little callous!
While reading post in this thread (but before I read the above), it
suddenenly hit me to wonder about the female scientist. There are all
these posts about the gun and Jose, but none about her.
Until now, I assumed that she happened to sit next to Peters by
coincedence. Maybe it's stupidity that didn't let me see the more
obvious conclusion that she transported into the past to meet Peters
to get the info they need on the pure virus. Sort of like a tag-team
approach: Cole pinpointed who spread the virus, and then she books
herself on the plane to take it to the next step, now that Cole has
"fulfilled" his part in the quest for the cure.
So I would have to say that the scientist *were* callous because they
let Cole die even though they had what they wanted. The lady had to
have been in the plane *before* Cole was shot, and probably even
before Jose came back. And at the minimum she had to have arranged to
get a ticket an hour or so ahead of time, assuming the flight wasn't
Theresa
caljohn <Cal...@indy.net> wrote:
>Concrete Skull wrote:
>>
>> dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) say:
>> > : As for the Voice: Psychosis is my best guess...perhaps it's a normal
>> > : result of time-travel.. or a paranormal result: maybe it's the 'spirit
>> > : of time' talking..;-). I dunno...
>>
>> I would have accepted any of these things if it weren't the same voice as
>> the bum who Railly and Cole meet. If the voice were ONLY in his head,
>> then it could be easily written off. And we know the bum is real,
>> because Railly saw him and because he had info that Cole did not (the
>> tooth thing), but why does he pretend to (or actually not) recognize
>> Railly at the end?
>>
>> Mmph.
>>
>> On 21 Oct 1996, Maria Vitale say:
>> > Oh and for anyone who thinks that the scientists did not know about
>> > Cole's "dream", please read the book.
>>
>> The book is cheating. If it isn't in the movie, I don't consider it fair
>> game. That said, it is pretty interesting that they knew about the dream in
>> the book...
>>
>> vph
>What about time travel? Movies like Time after Time. Somewhere in
>time....
STILL talking about that movie, HUH?
I have a question. If Bruce Willis' character was shot in the
airport, how could he be alive in the future??? I'm assuming, though,
that he DIED after being shot.
Keith Kushner
In article <804_961...@gigo.com>, ]\\antar wrote:
>....but Jose may not believe that; he may have decided
>to hand Cole the gun (possibly acquired in a half-jump like Cole's
>jump to WWI -- he was sent back, hit WWI for a minute and a half,
>then on to 1996 like planned) in the hopes that Cole, his friend,
1) Jose was sent back to WWI for a bit longer than that, according
to Railly's lecture. You *did* twig to the fact that it was
Jose she was talking about while showing the WWI slides, right?
2) Ummm... and how would Jose have transported the LeMat from
WWI to 1996? Swallow it? It is, after all, a rather *large*
pistol... and one not likely to be found in WWI France anyhow.
* Keith Kushner * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal *
* myc...@dorsai.dorsai.org * *
Marc Fleury
dar...@atcon.com (Theresa) wrote:
>I have a question. If Bruce Willis' character was shot in the
>airport, how could he be alive in the future??? I'm assuming, though,
>that he DIED after being shot.
The kid grew up to be Cole (Bruce Willis). Cole's life is as follows:
Born, grow to be a kid, witness a death at an airport, live through a
worldwide plague, go underground, grow to be an adult prisoner, get
involved in a scientific search, die in an airport. End.
-- Fleury.
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| All there is to know about time travel is not available at my page |
| |
| Writing for Comics! http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~lmize1/writing.html |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
Roger Smith
>getting a little tired of discussing it too, though. It will remain my
>favorite sci-fi movie of 1996 and possibly one of my all-time
>favorites though.
As usual, I'm coming in late to the discussion, so I may have missed
something. But I find it amusing that I don't see where anyone
mentioned that the story is not necessarily a story of time travel
(i.e. not science fiction <grin>). The whole thing is pretty
ambiguous. Bruce Willis's character may really have just been crazy
....
-- Roger
* Harry Nilsson Web Pages: http://www.jadebox.com
Steve Hix
In article k...@alice.walrus.com, nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) writes::: Well, I gotta admit Jose handing Cole the gun is a little strange...
:: here are my explanations:
:
:: WHY IT'S A LEMAT: This is a stupid technicality that really isn't
:: worth talking about. I do have a theories, but who cares? I don't. The
:: theory is simple: it's 2035. Mankind has fled underground. A whole new
:: world. Who knows which guns they managed to 'dig up' from above? They
:: can't be picky about it. Could have been any kind of gun.
:
:No it couldn't. Watch the film again, only pay closer attention this
:time to the "dream" sequences which Cole has. It is the same gun.
There are at least two different revolvers.
One is a LeMat (why in the world pick a cap-and-ball revolver...?)
One other looks like a Colt Single-Action Army, possibly a Ruger
Blackhawk or Vaquero.
The grips are different, the easiest-to-see difference.
Matthew Gibbins
Norman Haerens (nhae...@ott.hookup.net) wrote:
: I have a question. If you travel to the past, get shot and then come
: back to the present, how can the bullet show up as old ? It should look
: new, shouldn't it, or like a very recent imitation of an old bullet.
I thought the comment about the age of the bullet was due to it's
appearance not the metallurgy. That is it was a bullet type no longer in
production.
: Norman Haerens
: Mountain, Ontario, Canada
Mark Rowan
Distribution:
Maria Vitale (nigh...@walrus.com) wrote:
: Now what about the "mistakes" of
: sending him to 1990 instead of 1996? Or how about when both Cole and
: Jose ended up in 1917? Well, neither were really mistakes. They were
^^^^^^^^^
: supposed to happen because they both DID happen in the past. Railly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: could not have written her book and researched it as she had, specifically
: using that bit about Jose in 1917 and his prophecy about the end of the
: world and his search for the pure virus if the scientists had not in
: fact sent both he and Cole back to that time. Ditto for Cole's appearance
: in 1990.
:
I assume you mean that the scientists deliberately sent Cole to the wrong
times.
No, I think they were mistakes. Gilliam's main message in Brazil was that
no matter how advanced a society may seem, it is still vulnerable to
errors.
Plus, if you truly believe in the idea of the "immutable past",
the scientists wouldn't need to deliberately send him to the wrong times,
as it would have happened somehow anyway.
Maria Vitale
Theresa (dar...@atcon.com) wrote:
: caljohn <Cal...@indy.net> wrote:
: >Concrete Skull wrote:
: >>
: >> dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) say:
: >> > : As for the Voice: Psychosis is my best guess...perhaps it's a normal
: >> > : result of time-travel.. or a paranormal result: maybe it's the 'spirit
: >> > : of time' talking..;-). I dunno...
: >>
: >> I would have accepted any of these things if it weren't the same voice as
: >> the bum who Railly and Cole meet. If the voice were ONLY in his head,
: >> then it could be easily written off. And we know the bum is real,
: >> because Railly saw him and because he had info that Cole did not (the
: >> tooth thing), but why does he pretend to (or actually not) recognize
: >> Railly at the end?
: >>
: >> Mmph.
: >>
: >> On 21 Oct 1996, Maria Vitale say:
: >> > Oh and for anyone who thinks that the scientists did not know about
: >> > Cole's "dream", please read the book.
: >>
: >> The book is cheating. If it isn't in the movie, I don't consider it fair
: >> game. That said, it is pretty interesting that they knew about the dream in
: >> the book...
: >>
: >> vph
: >What about time travel? Movies like Time after Time. Somewhere in
: >time....
: STILL talking about that movie, HUH?
: I have a question. If Bruce Willis' character was shot in the
: airport, how could he be alive in the future??? I'm assuming, though,
: that he DIED after being shot.
Uh, are you forgetting that Willis' character James Cole is also present
at the airport and witnesses his own death -- as a child? The little
boy that Cole keeps "dreaming" about is in fact himself as a child. It
was his memory of his own death that he kept seeing in his "dreams".
Cole, as a boy, was at the airport the day the virus was released. He
then went underground and hence survived the outbreak. Becomes a criminal,
is imprisoned and is then "volunteered" for time travel back to the year
1996. What you have then is an instance where Cole is able to co-exist
with himself as a child during the same period in time. Got it now? :)
mlv
Maria Vitale
Steve Hix (fid...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article k...@alice.walrus.com, nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) writes:: :
: :: Well, I gotta admit Jose handing Cole the gun is a little strange...
: :: here are my explanations:
: :
: :: WHY IT'S A LEMAT: This is a stupid technicality that really isn't
: :: worth talking about. I do have a theories, but who cares? I don't. The
: :: theory is simple: it's 2035. Mankind has fled underground. A whole new
: :: world. Who knows which guns they managed to 'dig up' from above? They
: :: can't be picky about it. Could have been any kind of gun.
: :
: :No it couldn't. Watch the film again, only pay closer attention this
: :time to the "dream" sequences which Cole has. It is the same gun.
: There are at least two different revolvers.
: One is a LeMat (why in the world pick a cap-and-ball revolver...?)
: One other looks like a Colt Single-Action Army, possibly a Ruger
: Blackhawk or Vaquero.
: The grips are different, the easiest-to-see difference.
Then I must be the least gun-savvy person in the world because they
look the same to me but I'll take your word for it. I still don't
think it makes a difference though.
mlv
Dan Bongard
Maria Vitale (nigh...@walrus.com) wrote:
: Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: : dar...@atcon.com (Theresa) wrote:
: : >I have a question. If Bruce Willis' character was shot in the
: : >airport, how could he be alive in the future??? I'm assuming, though,
: : >that he DIED after being shot.
: : The kid grew up to be Cole (Bruce Willis). Cole's life is as follows:
: : Born, grow to be a kid, witness a death at an airport, live through a
: : worldwide plague, go underground, grow to be an adult prisoner, get
: : involved in a scientific search, die in an airport. End.
: Poor Cole! Trapped in an endless loop in time...
Endless? It only lasts about 25 years. :)
-- Dan
Maria Vitale
Mustard Gas Sally
> theory. The airline baggage check clerk remarks that "Wooo-eee!
> That's some trip you're taking, sir -- all in one week!" Dr. Peters
> shrugs and replies "Business."
Of course! Would you rather he said "I'm going to spread a virus that
will wipe out humanity"?
> Given that a virus is *may* *already*
> be present in those cities, we might guess that Dr. Peters is
> being sent to collect samples of the "new flu bug".
There's no evidence that it already exists in those places. That's not to
say that it's impossible, of course, but given that this is a film where
most everything else is adequately explained, it seems odd that we'd be
expected to make this sort of leap. Plus, it is a bit strange that the
bug would simultaneously pop up in all these cities, especially since it
would probably take a long time before anyone noticed it was something
different.
ALSO, why would Peters go to each city individually, risking infection.
Why not have a sample transported to the lab very carefully from each
place. If the intent is not to return a sample to the lab, then why is
he bopping around so much? He definitely wouldn't have enough time to
study the virus in each place if he only stays there a short while.
For someone who doesn't like coincidences, you're replying on an awful
lot of them to prove this theory. It's an interesting mental exercise,
but I think it's pretty clearly not the real intent of the film.
> The sample case would be empty before he leaves to collect the
> samples.
They're not, tho, he says so. Unless he's lying about that, which would
be really odd.
> Maybe the vials contain an inert gas like nitrogen
> in the name of biological purity.
So he just volunteers to open them, even when the customs guy doesn't ask
him to? Pretty shaky.
> As for whether the scientists of 2035 get their sample or not,
> it seems like a step in the right direction if Ms. Jones "Inusarance"
> follows Dr. Peters to San Francisco and gets a sample at the same
> hospital that Dr. Peters visits.
Or just gets a sample of Peters himself, if your theory is incorrect.
vph
Maria Vitale
Mark Rowan (mro...@arches.uga.edu) wrote:
: Distribution:
: Maria Vitale (nigh...@walrus.com) wrote:
: : Now what about the "mistakes" of
: : sending him to 1990 instead of 1996? Or how about when both Cole and
: : Jose ended up in 1917? Well, neither were really mistakes. They were
: ^^^^^^^^^
: : supposed to happen because they both DID happen in the past. Railly
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : could not have written her book and researched it as she had, specifically
: : using that bit about Jose in 1917 and his prophecy about the end of the
: : world and his search for the pure virus if the scientists had not in
: : fact sent both he and Cole back to that time. Ditto for Cole's appearance
: : in 1990.
: :
: I assume you mean that the scientists deliberately sent Cole to the wrong
: times.
Okay, let's take the idea of an "immutable past" for what it is supposed
to be. If you are in a specific point in time -- your present, if you
will, and you "decide" to travel back in time, what this really means is
that somewhere in your pre-destined future it already knows that you are
supposed to travel back in time. Therefore here you are in your own
present time and you have "decided" to take this step.
Now within the confines of 12M, for the scientists to have made a "mistake"
and sent Cole first to 1990 and then both Cole and Jose to 1917, is simply
incorrect. Cole was to have met Jeffrey Goines and Dr. Railly and set
things in motion -- the whole idea of the end of the world, the virus,
the Army of the 12 Monkeys, etc. Don't forget that Railly bases her book,
in part, on apocalyptic prophecy that Jose makes in 1917 and she realizes
that Cole has been telling her the truth about time travel from that photo
of Jose and Cole in 1917. Had these "mistakes" not occurred, these events
would not have occurred. That they did and the entire theory of an immutable
past dictates that they could not and in fact did not change the past --
therefore these were not "mistakes" but events that were supposed to happen
-- despite the initial intentions of the scientists (i.e.: they intended
for Cole to appear in 1996, not 1990 nor 1917).
: No, I think they were mistakes. Gilliam's main message in Brazil was that
: no matter how advanced a society may seem, it is still vulnerable to
: errors.
Errors? Certainly on Sam's part but do you think it was the main message
for the rest of the film? Error again in going after "Buttle" instead
of "Tuttle" but from there on out it becomes an illusioned-soaked nightmare/
fantasy for Sam a-la Orwell's 1984. And Brazil's society wasn't vulnerable
to the errors, it was the "little guys", as usual, who paid for it, not
society as a whole and certainly not "Big Brother".
That didn't quite come out the way I intended but I hope you follow it
anyway.
: Plus, if you truly believe in the idea of the "immutable past",
: the scientists wouldn't need to deliberately send him to the wrong times,
: as it would have happened somehow anyway.
No, I think you may have misunderstood me. I meant that the scientists
meant to send him to 1996 but missed twice. The misses were dictated
by fate. The scientists could have tried to send him to the year 1968
but it still would have come out the way it did because it was pre-destined
to be that way. That's why I'm saying that the scientists did not
deliberately send him to the wrong time periods but it was someone else
who questioned this and that's why I felt it important to point out that
the idea of an immutable past means that it would have happened despite
whatever the scientists would have planned because it was supposed to
be that way anyway. For one event to take place it is dependent on
several other, seemingly unrelated events. One could argue Cole's presence
was a mistake but it really wasn't. One could also argue that Cole's
presence was the instigator to the virus' release and the plague which
nearly wiped out the whole of humanity. This is certainly true if you
follow the timeline and trace the events and their influences and
consequences.
Neat film, eh? :)
Marc Fleury
rm...@mail.idt.net (Roy Glikin) wrote:
>Film as an artform has an analogy to painting in that it is an overall
>emotional response or impression which is sought to be conveyed by the
>artist. Following the literal plot and the details thereof is diminishing
>to the work. Allow the film to carry you along, allow the suspension of
>disbelief to happen and the work becomes seamless.
>
>Obi-Wan to Luke Skywalker: Let go your conscious mind. Trust your feelings.
How metaphysical of you.
Are you saying that those people who admire paintings for their
details are missing the point of the artwork?
I'm all for suspension fo disbelief. But when that suspension is
strained (And no, I don't think that it is in 12M), the movie loses
some of its magic. It isn't a concious decision to pick out flaws,
either; it's an innate ability to notice contradictions and
irregularities.
-- Fleury.
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Bored? Restless? Sorry, can't help ya. But go read my web page! |
Marc Fleury
ccc...@bronze.missouri.edu (Cathy Byland) wrote:
>Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
>: nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>: >Poor Cole! Trapped in an endless loop in time...
>: No he isn't. Watch:
>: Birth.
>: Childhood.
>: Adulthood.
>: Death.
>:
>: No loop.
>Yes there is a loop:
>Birth
>Childhood
>Adulthood
>Death
>Childhood
[...]
There's the problem. How do you get from Death to Childhood? What
gets transfered from Old Cole to Young Cole? Why should the viewpoint
switch here?
It would make as much sense, at your own death, to say that you
"become" someone else standing in the room.
>when he died in the airport, it was still 1996 or thereabouts. The
>plague hadn't happened, Cole hadn't grown up yet, survived the plague, or
>traveled back in time.
So? In order for the loop to occur, there has to be a reason for the
transfer of viewpoint from Old Cole to Young Cole.
Let me show this with an analogy:
Lets assume that Old Cole had given Young Cole something . . . say, a
watch. And he said "A man gave me this watch when I was your age.
Keep it." Imagine that Young Cole grows up, keeping the watch with
him all the time. In prison in the future, he hides it somewhere safe
on his body. Then, he is eventually sent back in time and dies in an
airport. But before he dies, he gives the watch to the kid, etc.
THEN there's a loop -- but it isn't COLE in the loop, it's the WATCH!
The thing which loops through time is the thing which is transferred
from Old Cole to Young Cole. But since nothing is transferred in the
movie (certainly not a consciousness or a soul or whatever would need
to be transferred in order to get a human being into such a temporal
loop), then Cole is NOT looping through time.
Did this make it clearer or muddier?
-- Fleury.
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| What I'd like is a loop that forces people to forever hit "reload" |
| |
| Writing for Comics! http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~lmize1/writing.html |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
Subject changed. Emailed and posted.
Marc Fleury
nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
>: Cole's life is as follows:
>: Born, grow to be a kid, witness a death at an airport, live through a
>: worldwide plague, go underground, grow to be an adult prisoner, get
>: involved in a scientific search, die in an airport. End.
>Poor Cole! Trapped in an endless loop in time...
No he isn't. Watch:
Birth.
Childhood.
Adulthood.
Death.
No loop.
-- Fleury.
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Wanna be thrown for a loop? Check out this fancy-schmancy page: |
Cathy Byland
Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
: >Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: >: Cole's life is as follows:
: >: Born, grow to be a kid, witness a death at an airport, live through a
: >: worldwide plague, go underground, grow to be an adult prisoner, get
: >: involved in a scientific search, die in an airport. End.
: >Poor Cole! Trapped in an endless loop in time...
: No he isn't. Watch:
: Birth.
: Childhood.
: Adulthood.
: Death.
: No loop.
Yes there is a loop:
Birth
Childhood
Adulthood
Death
Childhood
Adulthood
Death
Childhood
Adulthood
Death etc
when he died in the airport, it was still 1996 or thereabouts. The
plague hadn't happened, Cole hadn't grown up yet, survived the plague, or
traveled back in time.
Cathy Byland
Roy Glikin
Gee, although this is an interesting discussion, let me suggest you look
at the whole movie this way:
Film as an artform has an analogy to painting in that it is an overall
emotional response or impression which is sought to be conveyed by the
artist. Following the literal plot and the details thereof is diminishing
to the work. Allow the film to carry you along, allow the suspension of
disbelief to happen and the work becomes seamless.
Unfortunately, too many movies do not function on this level. The
brilliance of 12M, and Terry Gilliam, is that it does. The question is
not whether you understand the plot but whether you have caught the flow.
Tefkros Symeonides
ccc...@bronze.missouri.edu (Cathy Byland) wrote:
>: No loop.
Please try to understand before one of us dies:
Birth
Childhood (witnessing own death)
Adulthood (time travel)
Death (no life)
i.e. there can be no loop; the Cole that continues Childhood and
Adulthood after witnessing his own death is NOT the Cole that dies
(and it's logical too!)
Isn't there an FAQ where we could put this?
Constantinos Symeonides
Roy Glikin
In article <55hc0r$c...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> I'm not going to present any more of my theories about 12M. I just
> wanted to say that it pleases me to think that the search for the
> pure virus never ends ...
> You don't know what happens after Cole dies. You know that some
> additional time-travelers arrive in 1996 and that young Cole goes
> out to the parking lot. You're left in a situation that demands
> a sequel to explain what happens next. A sequel is easy enough
> to do becuase all you need is the Dr. Peters character and the
> prune-face lady. You don't need Terry Gilliam, Madeliene Stowe,
> Bruce Willis or Brad Pitt. It's easier to make a sequel to 12M
> than Back to the Future.
I guess I'm a hopeless polyanna. I concluded that the search for a "pure
virus" was another typical sci-fi McGuffin. The "insurance-lady" has the
opportunity to prevent the virus from spreading in the first place. If
not on the first try, then in a subsequent attempt. Yes, I'm assuming Dr.
Peters is the culprit, but 12M is a Hollywood movie and it was clear to me
he's the agent of genocide.
Therefore, the virus never happens and all the characters are restored to
a normal life. It's a happy ending!
Mustard Gas Sally
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
> But by the time Dr. Railly changes her hair color and dons the flowery
> dress then all the suspense is gone. The movie ends quite unlike
> a Hitchcock triller.
I found the inevitability of it all to be one of the greatest aspects of
the film. They keep playing with you, like they might somehow be able to
change the future, but if you're paying attention, you know that they
can't possibly...but there's still that bit of hope...or dread, in my
case, since I was desperately afraid that they were going to wuss out on
a Hollywood ending and ruin the whole thing. That they didn't and
knowing the ending was locked in was a great feeling for me.
> The whole matter of the voice mail tape is totally idiotic. These
> scientists have a tape and a phone number but they don't know
> what's on the tape. In regards to the first message (Dr. Railly's
> "prank" call), they ask Cole if he left that message.
If you were paying attention, you saw that they explained that the tape
was in extremely poor condition and the message was being rebuilt one
word at a time. The second time I saw the movie, I realized that it was
Madeline Stowe on the tape, but it hardly registered with me the first
time. Besides, since we're still following Cole's view of time, the
scientists still hadn't worked out exactly what all the tapes said in the
"present".
> Cole is not very bright but we do know that he was smart enough to
> *not* take the pistol into Dr. Goines' formal dinner party.
I don't think that was on purpose. It looked like it just fell out of
his pants...I enjoyed that they made a point of showing us that he forgot
his gun, and then having it be mostly irrelevant to the plot anyway.
> The idea that Dr. Peters is releasing a deadly virus is absurd.
I think this theory has been pretty much shot down by all non-Devil's
advocates...
vph
Dan Bongard
Roy Glikin (rm...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: I guess I'm a hopeless polyanna. I concluded that the search for a "pure
: virus" was another typical sci-fi McGuffin. The "insurance-lady" has the
: opportunity to prevent the virus from spreading in the first place. If
: not on the first try, then in a subsequent attempt. Yes, I'm assuming Dr.
: Peters is the culprit, but 12M is a Hollywood movie and it was clear to me
: he's the agent of genocide.
: Therefore, the virus never happens and all the characters are restored to
: a normal life. It's a happy ending!
Well, close but no cigar. :)
The virus does still happen, because the past cannot be altered in the
12 Monkeys universe. However I think it is safe to say that the
insurance lady (or some other person) will manage to get a copy of
the 'pure' virus from the lab assistant.
Don't forget -- not only was the virus already released (the lab
assistant and the airport security person were probably infected),
but nobody except Railly (and to a lesser extent, Cole) _wanted_
to stop the virus. The scientists from the future certainly never
gave any indication that they had any desire to save the "dying world"
of 1996 even if it WAS possible (which, from all indications, it isn't).
So yes, it is a happy ending in that the human race is saved, even
though there's still that unfortunate "5 billion deaths" business.
-- Dan
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 18:41:41 -0500,
Mustard Gas Sally <j...@winona.cs.miami.edu>
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Talk about a newsfeed that sucks!!
:> The whole matter of the voice mail tape is totally idiotic. These
:> scientists have a tape and a phone number but they don't know
:> what's on the tape. In regards to the first message (Dr. Railly's
:> "prank" call), they ask Cole if he left that message.
:If you were paying attention, you saw that they explained that the tape
:was in extremely poor condition and the message was being rebuilt one
:word at a time.
If you were thinking, you'd realize that there is a paradox
going on. Information is being created ex-nihilo.
Dan Bongard
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: Mustard Gas Sally <j...@winona.cs.miami.edu> wrote:
::If you were paying attention, you saw that they explained that the tape
::was in extremely poor condition and the message was being rebuilt one
::word at a time.
: If you were thinking, you'd realize that there is a paradox
: going on. Information is being created ex-nihilo.
Wrong.
The reasons WHY you're completely wrong have been explained
to you repeatedly without you listening or acknowledging the
replies, so I'm not going to bother explaining again. :)
-- Dan
Maria Vitale
Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
: :: Birth.
: :: Childhood.
: :: Adulthood.
: :: Death.
: :: No loop.
: : Yes there is a loop:
: : Birth
: : Childhood
: : Adulthood
: : Death [note from Dan Bongard: does he come back to
: life at this point? He would have to for your
: "loop" to be valid]
: : Childhood
: : Adulthood
: : Death
: [snip]
: No. How could anybody be confused by this?
How could you????
: (1): Birth, age 0.
: (2): Witness guy getting killed, age 8
: (3): Adulthood, ages 18-35(thirty SOMETHING anyway)
: (4): Death, age 35.
: (2) and (4) both occur in 1996 (because he travelled back in time),
: but there is no "loop" here, because in order to "loop" back through
: again you have to switch your "view" from the Old Cole to the Young
: Cole. Cole's existance ends in the airport in 1996; where's he
: loop to after that? :)
: There is no loop. There is _overlap_, which is not the same thing.
Why do you insist on forgetting about Cole as a child?? Did you
see him die in the movie? Jesus!! Please, please, please!!! You
have a person co-existing with himself at the same point in time.
Follow that so far?? Probably not. Cole as a child and Cole as
an adult. When Cole gets killed, what happens to the kid? Doesn't
this kid then grow up to become Cole the adult? ARGH!!!!!!!!!
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
Maria Vitale
Tefkros Symeonides (tsy...@zenon.logos.cy.net) wrote:
: ccc...@bronze.missouri.edu (Cathy Byland) wrote:
: >Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: >: nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
: >: >Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: >: >: Cole's life is as follows:
: >: >: Born, grow to be a kid, witness a death at an airport, live through a
: >: >: worldwide plague, go underground, grow to be an adult prisoner, get
: >: >: involved in a scientific search, die in an airport. End.
: >: >Poor Cole! Trapped in an endless loop in time...
: >: No he isn't. Watch:
: >: Birth.
: >: Childhood.
: >: Adulthood.
: >: Death.
: >: No loop.
: >Yes there is a loop:
: >Birth
: >Childhood
: >Adulthood
: >Death
: >Childhood
: >Adulthood
: >Death
: >Childhood
: >Adulthood
: >Death etc
: Please try to understand before one of us dies:
<sigh>
: Birth
: Childhood (witnessing own death)
: Adulthood (time travel)
: Death (no life)
But... you're missing the entire point of the theory of time as
a continuum. Get it? "Continuum?" For Cole to have witnessed his
own death -- and please let's not forget that Cole's "dream" was
not a dream at all but a memory from his childhood -- then Cole
must have already died once when Cole was still a child. Then for
Cole to die yet again for the viewers of the film you see then that
Cole has already died "twice" and will continue to "die" for all
eternity. This is the very principle behind the idea of a continuum.
"An uninterrupted sequence of events."
: i.e. there can be no loop; the Cole that continues Childhood and
: Adulthood after witnessing his own death is NOT the Cole that dies
: (and it's logical too!)
Yes he is. He is the same person. Both Cole the child and Cole the
adult are the same person. Obviously the adult has had years of
experience which the child has not attained yet but he will as
he grows up. They are one and the same. If 12M has a problem theory-
wise it is in having Cole co-exist with himself as a child. It is
a risky proposition at best but it works in 12M because of the
time continuum theory which allows for Cole to exist forever within
a loop in time.
: Isn't there an FAQ where we could put this?
If someone does manage to throw together one I hope they'll do a little
research first into some of these theories... Just dismissing them would
be a serious injustice to the film.
mlv
Maria Vitale
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:34:28 -0500,
: Mustard Gas Sally <j...@winona.cs.miami.edu>
: asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
: :On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
: :> Look. Here's my latest addition to the "Dr. Peters is innocent"
: :> theory. The airline baggage check clerk remarks that "Wooo-eee!
: :> That's some trip you're taking, sir -- all in one week!" Dr. Peters
: :> shrugs and replies "Business."
: :Of course! Would you rather he said "I'm going to spread a virus that
: :will wipe out humanity"?
: I'm not going to present any more of my theories about 12M. I just
: wanted to say that it pleases me to think that the search for the
: pure virus never ends -- just like the search for the Maltese Falcon.
: In the Dasheil Hammet (sp?) book (and the three movie adaptions),
: the search comes to an end when Sam Spade tells the police where
: Sydney Greenstreet and his pals are. The gang of searchers are
: arrested and I suppose that means the the Maltese Falcon remains
: unfound.
: I prefer to imagine a different ending in which the Greenstreet and Lorre
: continue the search in another part of the world. Greenstreet was
: talking about that at the end of the movie anyway. I like the idea of
: a search that continues forever. After all, the Maltese Falcon is described
: as being such a "rare bird" in the words of Greenstreet that it seems a
: shame to call off the hunt.
: For everyone who thinks that the pure virus is found at the end of 12M,
: you're making that up in your mind. You can say that Cole is dead
: becuase that is depicted in an uncontroverted manner. You can't say
: what happens after the handshake on the airplane. All you can say
: is that these two people meet. It's entirely possible that Dr. Peters
: will have some sedatives that he slips to the Insuranace Lady.
: You don't know what happens after Cole dies. You know that some
: additional time-travelers arrive in 1996 and that young Cole goes
: out to the parking lot. You're left in a situation that demands
: a sequel to explain what happens next. A sequel is easy enough
: to do becuase all you need is the Dr. Peters character and the
: prune-face lady. You don't need Terry Gilliam, Madeliene Stowe,
: Bruce Willis or Brad Pitt. It's easier to make a sequel to 12M
: than Back to the Future.
Of course it is. Especially if you use plenty of your own theories
which have absolutely nothing to do with the original storyline.
Been there, seen that...
Maria Vitale
Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: rm...@mail.idt.net (Roy Glikin) wrote:
: >Film as an artform has an analogy to painting in that it is an overall
: >emotional response or impression which is sought to be conveyed by the
: >artist. Following the literal plot and the details thereof is diminishing
: >to the work. Allow the film to carry you along, allow the suspension of
: >disbelief to happen and the work becomes seamless.
: >
: >Obi-Wan to Luke Skywalker: Let go your conscious mind. Trust your feelings.
: How metaphysical of you.
: Are you saying that those people who admire paintings for their
: details are missing the point of the artwork?
: I'm all for suspension fo disbelief. But when that suspension is
: strained (And no, I don't think that it is in 12M), the movie loses
: some of its magic. It isn't a concious decision to pick out flaws,
: either; it's an innate ability to notice contradictions and
: irregularities.
I've got no problem with picking out flaws, etc. But some of the
folks I've run into (headlong it would seem) can't seem to find a
way to accept ANY part of 12M's theories about time. Some of them
also have been unable to accept the storyline as presented leading
me to suspect that on the whole they may have been happier watching
some other film. That being the case I cannot understand why some
of them insist on discussing something that they obviously could
not get into.
No flames intended, just my opinion.
mlv
Maria Vitale
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 18:41:41 -0500,
: Mustard Gas Sally <j...@winona.cs.miami.edu>
: asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
: :On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net say:
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Talk about a newsfeed that sucks!!
: :> The whole matter of the voice mail tape is totally idiotic. These
: :> scientists have a tape and a phone number but they don't know
: :> what's on the tape. In regards to the first message (Dr. Railly's
: :> "prank" call), they ask Cole if he left that message.
: :If you were paying attention, you saw that they explained that the tape
: :was in extremely poor condition and the message was being rebuilt one
: :word at a time.
: If you were thinking, you'd realize that there is a paradox
: going on. Information is being created ex-nihilo.
No it isn't. The information is there they just don't have it all
at once. It's a real tired analogy but I'll use it once more:
It's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle when you don't know
what the completed picture will look like. You know what a jigsaw
puzzle is and how to go about putting it together but you're not
even sure if you've got all the pieces yet. Some may be missing.
So, what do the scientists do? They use whatever is at their disposal.
Newspaper clippings, "volunteer" trips to the surface, even time
travel and voice-mail recordings that they somehow managed to get
hold of.
If you notice carefully none of the events, none of the time travel
sequences ever cover the exact same period in time. First it was
1990. Then 1917. Then 1996. And again a few weeks later in 1996.
So each of the travels revealed new bits and pieces of the "puzzle"
if you will. Granted had everthing in the film repeatedly happened
during the same day and year (as in Groundhog Day) I'd fully agree
with you but the theory here is that the past cannot be altered.
Cole and Railly do nothing to alter the past which would not have
occurred "naturally". Only the scientists aren't able to piece
everything together all at once. That's why they had the recording
that Railly made before Cole had a chance to "witness" it because
of the time continuum and the time travel events which took place.
To dismiss these events as ex nihilo would be incorrect.
Maria Vitale
: >Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: >: nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
: >: >Poor Cole! Trapped in an endless loop in time...
: >: No he isn't. Watch:
: >: Birth.
: >: Childhood.
: >: Adulthood.
: >: Death.
: >:
: >: No loop.
: >Yes there is a loop:
: >Birth
: >Childhood
: >Adulthood
: >Death
: >Childhood
: [...]
: There's the problem. How do you get from Death to Childhood? What
: gets transfered from Old Cole to Young Cole? Why should the viewpoint
: switch here?
No, there's YOUR problem! You're looking for some sort of transference.
Where in 12M does Gilliam or the writers suggest that there is anything
of the kind? No mention of "soul" or "spirit" or what have you. Only
that Cole existed, for the purposes of the film, during his time travels,
as an adult and as a child for brief periods of time and that Cole,
as a child, witnessed his own death, as an adult. Given that, and given
the theory presented in 12M -- which calls for some acceptance on behalf
of the viewer -- then once Cole, the adult, dies, and you can plainly
see that there isn't any more to this guy once he finally does die...
AND Cole, the child, is still very much alive and is seen going with
his parents to their car (will you admit that much??) then yes the
"viewpoint" does in fact switch to Young Cole since he is the one who
is still alive. Hell, even Railly takes some comfort in looking around
for the boy because while she is kneeling by Old Cole's dead body, Young
Cole lives on. The person she has come to love is still alive and will
grow up to meet her again some thirty years hence. THE LOOP!!
: It would make as much sense, at your own death, to say that you
: "become" someone else standing in the room.
You can say whatever you like but as far as the film is concerned Cole
didn't "become" anyone or anything. He was "co-existing" with his
younger self. End of story. Older Cole dies but younger Cole lives on
to fulfill his destiny in the grand scheme of things.
: >when he died in the airport, it was still 1996 or thereabouts. The
: >plague hadn't happened, Cole hadn't grown up yet, survived the plague, or
: >traveled back in time.
: So? In order for the loop to occur, there has to be a reason for the
: transfer of viewpoint from Old Cole to Young Cole.
And somehow you don't see it, do you? The reason is that Cole must survive
the plague, grow up to "volunteer" for the time travel, meet up with Railly,
Jeffrey Goines, etc. and meet his fate at that airport on that day so that
the person responsible for the virus can finally be indentified. Get it now?
: Let me show this with an analogy:
: Lets assume that Old Cole had given Young Cole something . . . say, a
: watch. And he said "A man gave me this watch when I was your age.
Why do people insist on rewriting this damn film???
: Keep it." Imagine that Young Cole grows up, keeping the watch with
: him all the time. In prison in the future, he hides it somewhere safe
: on his body. Then, he is eventually sent back in time and dies in an
: airport. But before he dies, he gives the watch to the kid, etc.
: THEN there's a loop -- but it isn't COLE in the loop, it's the WATCH!
The loop is Cole himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dammit! Stop
looking for an external factor here. There isn't one. It would have made
no sense for there to be one. The essential element is Cole himself! It
would have made no sense for Cole the elder to meet Cole the younger at
any point in the past. You are looking to rewrite the past which according
to the whole theory of the movie is completely impossible. Nothing is
transferred. One statement made here which hits a little closer to home
is that there is in fact an overlap but that is what allows the loop
to take place. For Cole to co-exist with a younger version of himself
and that this younger person does in fact grow up to live the life that
the older Cole has lived up until his death, is the very essence of the
loop.
: The thing which loops through time is the thing which is transferred
: from Old Cole to Young Cole. But since nothing is transferred in the
: movie (certainly not a consciousness or a soul or whatever would need
: to be transferred in order to get a human being into such a temporal
: loop), then Cole is NOT looping through time.
You're reading too much of a spiritual spin on all this. That's what's
giving you such a problem. This isn't like Quantum Leap where the
assumption was that it was God who was yanking Sam Becket into and out
of people's lives (and bodies). Gilliam makes no such claim or inference.
: Did this make it clearer or muddier?
Muddier, I'm afraid. You have to shake this notion that something
physical (or spiritual) MUST occur between the two Coles. Both were
alive, then only one was left to continue his growth into manhood
and eventually to end up right back at that airport where he will
once again watch his "nightmare" memory of seeing a man (himself)
be killed before his eyes.
mlv
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On 6 Nov 1996 20:00:24 GMT,
nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale)
asseverated the following adage, precept, epigram and/or apothegm:
:Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
:: There is no loop. There is _overlap_, which is not the same thing.
:Why do you insist on forgetting about Cole as a child?? Did you
:see him die in the movie? Jesus!! Please, please, please!!! You
:have a person co-existing with himself at the same point in time.
:Follow that so far?? Probably not. Cole as a child and Cole as
:an adult. When Cole gets killed, what happens to the kid? Doesn't
:this kid then grow up to become Cole the adult? ARGH!!!!!!!!!
This would be a lot clearer when they make the sequel to 12M.
1. watch the movie (Cole dies)
2. watch the sequel (Cole is born and grows up)
3. watch the movie (Cole dies)
4. watch the sequel (Cole is born and grows up)
... etc.
The audience is caught in a time loop watching Cole grow up and
become a prisonner in one movie and then watching Cole go back
in time and die in the other movie. The movie never ends for
the audience becuase Cole is still alive after he dies (all be it,
as a child...). True, Cole lives just one life but the viewer
must watch the film and it's sequel over and over for eternity
becuase the film (and it's sequel) don't ever come to an end.
P.S. This thread reminds me of the opening scene of MP&theHG.
There's this guy with some cocanuts and the guards and he wind
up bickering about birds. King Arthur looked so frustrated
that the guards wouldn't accept his explanation. Maybe the
cocanuts washed ashore. What do you think?
Douglas D@Waikato U
ccc...@bronze.missouri.edu (Cathy Byland) writes:
> Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
> : nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>
> : >: Cole's life is as follows:
> : >: Born, grow to be a kid, witness a death at an airport, live through a
> : >: worldwide plague, go underground, grow to be an adult prisoner, get
> : >: involved in a scientific search, die in an airport. End.
>
>
> : No he isn't. Watch:
> : Birth.
> : Childhood.
> : Adulthood.
> : Death.
>
> : No loop.
>
> Yes there is a loop:
> Birth
> Childhood
> Adulthood
> Death
No there isn't a loop!
Birth
Childhood (where he observes his death)
Adulthood
Death.
there is no loop here. sure, his life isn't being lived in normal linear
time, but what of it?
--
Douglas 'dreamer@flatline' Davey =-= email: d.d...@waikato.ac.nz
Unless otherwise noted, posts do not represent the views of my employers.
Quote: "It makes you wonder whether feather dusters are worth living for"
- identity withheld.
Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net
On 6 Nov 1996 20:31:41 GMT,
:Why do people insist on rewriting this damn film???
Becuase it's their perogative. It's not some biblical epic.
Pickled
In an article dated 6 Nov 1996 19:55:35 GMT, nigh...@walrus.com
(Maria Vitale) wrote:
>Tefkros Symeonides (tsy...@zenon.logos.cy.net) wrote:
>: ccc...@bronze.missouri.edu (Cathy Byland) wrote:
>: >Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
>: >: nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>: >: >Marc Fleury (tet...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
>: >: >: Cole's life is as follows:
>: >: >: Born, grow to be a kid, witness a death at an airport, live through a
>: >: >: worldwide plague, go underground, grow to be an adult prisoner, get
>: >: >: involved in a scientific search, die in an airport. End.
>: >: >Poor Cole! Trapped in an endless loop in time...
>: >: No he isn't. Watch:
>: >: Birth.
>: >: Childhood.
>: >: Adulthood.
>: >: Death.
>: >: No loop.
>: >Yes there is a loop:
>: >Birth
>: >Childhood
>: >Adulthood
>: >Death
><sigh>
Cole experiences each event in his life only once. He is born, he
witnesses a murder in an airport, he survives a plague, he is sent
back in time, and then he dies. He will never have an occasion to
stop and say "oh no, not again!!" because the experiences are not
repeated. The two events that happened in 1996 (witnessing a murder
and dying) each only happened once. There is no "loop". The airport
scene in the movie is only repeated so that the audience can see it
from both points of view.
If Cole's parents had taken him to a baseball game instead of the
airport that day, would people still be having this problem?
Alice.
Marc Fleury
nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
>There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
>There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
>There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
>There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
>There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
>There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
[snip]
See the other thread.
"Time Loops (in 12 Monkeys)"
-- Fleury.
Marc Fleury
Before I start:
Maria, stop being so condescending. I *do* understand the film. I've
understood it since I first saw it. I am *not* rewriting anything, I
am simply applying a little logic to what we are given.
If you would refrain from talking to me like I'm an idiot, maybe
you'll listen long enough to understand what I'm saying. (Not
necessarily *agree* with me, but at least understand, which you
haven't done so far.)
Anyway...
nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>Marc Fleury wrote:
>: How do you get from Death to Childhood? What gets transfered from
>: Old Cole to Young Cole? Why should the viewpoint switch here?
>No, there's YOUR problem! You're looking for some sort of transference.
>Where in 12M does Gilliam or the writers suggest that there is anything
>of the kind?
It isn't 12M which suggests that something must get transferred, it's
logic, and the definition of "loop". A closed loop is a single thing.
In order to get all the way around, it must be connected to itself.
In order to get "around" Cole's life, we must return from Old Cole to
Young Cole. There has to be a connection there. You say elsewhere
that the connection is mearly the fact that the two of them coexist.
I'll get to that at the end of the post. For now, I'll address some
other possible sources of the loop, in case anyone else out there has
a "loop" theory to offer (which I'd have to argue seperately)...
>once Cole, the adult, dies, ... AND Cole, the child, is still very
>much alive and is seen going with his parents to their car then yes the
>"viewpoint" does in fact switch to Young Cole since he is the one who
>is still alive.
Ok. So you say that the viewpoint switches from OC to YC (I'm sice of
typing "Old Cole" etc). This *will* form the loop that you are so
fond of.
However, we need a reason for the viewpoint to switch. The simplest
one is this: the camera follows YC. In this sense, the "viewpoint"
of the film does indeed get transfered. For the whole film we are
told "Here is Cole. This is what happens to him". At the end we are
shown "Here is Cole again. His future is still ahead of him". Loop,
right? YES! But it's a very superficial one, because it relies
solely on who the camera is pointed at.
Did you ever see Pulp Fiction? [SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH! SKIP IT
IF YOU DON'T WANT PF SPOILED!] In the second segment, the Vincent
gets shot. He dies. In the *third* segment, he's back to life. This
is because the third segment takes place (chronologicaly) *before* the
second segment. When Vincent walks out of the restaurant at the end
of the movie, you think to yourself "Jules is quitting the business,
but Vince is continuing... and he's going to die because of that".
Death is in that character's future. So, you can mentally replay the
death scene, and then the rest of the movie again -- and Vince is
again reborn. In the very same way that Cole is caught in a loop,
Vincent is as well. But it is a very superficial, artificial sort of
loop, instigated merely by what direction the camera is pointed.
We need more than this in order to claim that the character of James
Cole is caught in a temporal loop. If we use the camera as a
reference for viewpoint, we are removing ourselves from the 12M world
and treating it as a movie. On a meta-level (the level of us watching
the movie), yes, Cole is in a loop. We see him as an adult at the
beginning of the film, and as a child at the end. But I doubt that
that's quite what you meant, so we have to go a little deeper...
>Hell, even Railly takes some comfort in looking around
>for the boy because while she is kneeling by Old Cole's dead body, Young
>Cole lives on.
Here you offer Railly's view as a pontential connection.
>The person she has come to love is still alive and will
>grow up to meet her again some thirty years hence. THE LOOP!!
"meet her again". The English language is pretty vague sometimes,
especially when it is applied to concepts which are not very
intuitive. In this case, the meaning of "again" is unclear. Cole's
first meeting with Railly only happens one way: in the prison cell in
1990.
It happens on a specific date, at a specific time. It only happens
once. If you think that it happens more than once because of the
loop, then you are arguing in a circle (no pun intended) because
you're starting out with the assumption (that there is a loop) in
order to show that the event occurs an infinite number of times (i.e.
that there is a loop).
Why does Railly smile at YC? Becuase she knows that her lover is
still alive (in a way). Does that imply a loop? Nope. The smile is
equivalent to the bittersweet smile of a mother to her son, when the
father is dead. Her lover is still alive (in a way) because a part of
him lives on in the child. But you wouldn't say that the father is in
any sort of "loop".
>For Cole to co-exist with a younger version of himself ... is the very
>essence of the loop.
And finally, we end up here. All that's left. The simple
co-existence of YC and OC causes the loop.
In order to show why this is not so, I'll have to sidetrack a little
and describe something called "worldlines".
In physics, an object's worldline is defined as the path that the
object traces through four-dimensional space-time. A human being's
world line represents that person's life.
My own worldline begins in Trois-Riviere, Quebec, on November 15,
1972, and snakes through time and space up to my current location and
time. (It also theoretically continues into the future, ending at the
place and time of my death.)
Worldlines become strange when they are applied to time-travellers,
because they become disjointed. (Same happens when they are applied
to people who transport instantaneously from one place to another
without crossing the space in between.) Here is what Cole's worldline
might looklike:
A long, continuous line from birth up to his "volunteer" duty. Then,
the line hops over to 1990. (It doesn't cover the "space" between
these two points in space-time, it hops from one to the other without
going through any intermediates [1]). It then extends for a bit, and
hops back to the future. As a whole, Cole's worldline is a bunch of
little snippets here and there, representing all the different times
and places he has been.
It *is* (theroetically) possible to have a *closed* worldline. This
is the ultimate, literal loop. An object with a closed worldline
would forever cycle through spacetime. How might this happen? Well,
with time travel, of course. In my last post, I wrote about the
example of a watch, given from a man to his younger self. (You then
accused me of trying to rewrite the film. I wasn't. I clearly stated
that it was an *analogy*. But anyway, I'll use a slightly different
example this time...)
If you know anything about fluids, you know that they dispurse. In
fact, the spread of the virus in 12M requires this knowledge. Think,
for a moment, about the air that Cole has in his lungs when he is sent
back through time. In 1990, he exhales. These air molecules are
dispursed into the atmosphere. Eventually, they will spread evenly
throughout the planet. Some of them will be taken underground, and
some of them will end up in Cole's lungs again when he gets into the
time machine. He then goes into the past, and so on.
The worldline of one of those molecules is a loop. It has no
beginning, and it has no ending. It exists ex-nihlo ("out of
nothing"). [2] [3]
This is a true temporal loop. THIS is what is needed for Cole to be
in. But he isn't. Cole's worldline begins at a definite point, and
ends at a definite point. Cole is not in a loop.
PHEW! That was pretty tiring. If anyone was even *mildly* intrigued,
interested or entertained by any of that, beware... this was just a
SAMPLE of what's to come if I ever get around to writing that
long-promised post about the inner workings of time travel.
Article Unavailable
Marc Fleury
nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>If someone does manage to throw together [an FAQ] I hope they'll do a little
>research first into some of these theories... Just dismissing them would
>be a serious injustice to the film.
Oh, I've done research. See the other thread:
Marc Fleury
nigh...@walrus.com (Maria Vitale) wrote:
>I've got no problem with picking out flaws, etc. But some of the
>folks I've run into (headlong it would seem) can't seem to find a
>way to accept ANY part of 12M's theories about time.
I am not one of those people. In fact, the only one I can think of in
this group is Mr. X.
-- Fleury.
Dan Bongard
Maria Vitale (nigh...@walrus.com) wrote:
: Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
:: (1): Birth, age 0.
:: (2): Witness guy getting killed, age 8
:: (3): Adulthood, ages 18-35(thirty SOMETHING anyway)
:: (4): Death, age 35.
:: (2) and (4) both occur in 1996 (because he travelled back in time),
:: but there is no "loop" here, because in order to "loop" back through
:: again you have to switch your "view" from the Old Cole to the Young
:: Cole. Cole's existance ends in the airport in 1996; where's he
:: loop to after that? :)
: : There is no loop. There is _overlap_, which is not the same thing.
: Why do you insist on forgetting about Cole as a child?? Did you
: see him die in the movie?
Yes; he got shot to death in the airport. Now before you say "the
child didn't get shot!", remember that Cole and the child are the
exact same person.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, in order for a "loop" to exist
something has to be looping. Now Cole is clearly not looping
because his life begins at around 1988, continues into the
future to around 2020 or so, then jumps back to 1990, then 1996,
then ends. As he dies he _witnesses_ an earlier part of his life,
but he doesn't _experience_ it again. Ergo there is no loop.
: Jesus!! Please, please, please!!!
Settle down, Beavis. This is only a movie.
: You have a person co-existing with himself at the same point in time.
: Follow that so far?? Probably not.
Yes, the "age 35-death" segment of Cole's life does, in fact, overlap
with the "age 2-2.1" and "age 8-8.1" (roughly) segments of his life.
Incidentally, there's not need to get insulting simply because you
don't understand 12 Monkeys. :)
: Cole as a child and Cole as
: an adult. When Cole gets killed, what happens to the kid? Doesn't
: this kid then grow up to become Cole the adult? ARGH!!!!!!!!!
Of course the kid grows up to be an adult. That doesn't mean he's
trapped in a loop.
Where "a" is Cole's age and "t" equals the calendar year Cole is in:
If a<35, t=a+1988
If 35<a<35.1, t=a+1955
If 35.1<a<35.2, t=a+1961
These equations define Cole's life. Graph them; there's no loop.
At age 35.2 (where "35.2" is Cole's age at time of death) Cole
coexists with the potion of his life where he was about 8
years old. However coexistance does not imply a loop of any sort.
Now, before you throw another hissy fit, I think you're overlooking
the loop that DOES exist: the one the _audience_ is in. What
the camera in 12M does is set a=8.2 when a=35.2. Given that,
the _audience's_view_ will always loop, but it is doing so by
jumping to a different point in Cole's life -- 27 years earlier,
from his point of view. Now if you filmed _my_ life and jumped back
to my birth every time reached, say, age 80 and died, then YOU,
the audience, would be following an endless loop. I, however,
would have lived 80 years, once.
Think to yourself: if Cole is trapped in "an endless loop" how come
he doesn't keep getting older? As you yourself keep screaming,
he dies in the airport -- he lives about 35 years, once, and that's
it. From Cole's POV there is no loop. From ours, by some definitions,
there might be, but Cole himself only lives the age 8-35 segment of
his life once. Therefore the original comment of "Poor Cole, trapped
in an endless loop in time" (or whatever) doesn't make a whole
hell of a lot of sense. Cole experiences only 35 years of life.
If that's "endless" then I hope to have at least two or three times
as "endless" a life. :)
["there is a loop", typed 56 times, deleted]
Nice temper tantrum there.
-- Dan
Mario Tambay
Too funny, I had the same argument with my 13 year old daughter. I told
her to put herself in the place of Cole(?). She is born, time travels and
then dies. She does not experience a continuity of existence from bleeding
to death to holding Mom's hand 30 yards over. No loop.
She didn't see it that way :)
I told from the kid's perspective, what he experienced before seeing the
death was coming to the Airport with Mom and Dad in the family car, not
running with a blond. No loop.
Couldn't see it :(
So I told her to see it from the point of view of one of the future scientists,
Cole is born, sent back in time and dies. Next day is still next day from
the scientist's perspective. Still in the future. No loop.
She still didn't see it that way >:-<
I explained that the camera's point of view does not translate into subjective
time as experienced by the characters.
Didn't believe me.
That did it, I'm taking her to see two Ingmar Bergman movies, randomly picked.
Mt.
Mustard Gas Sally
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Roger Smith say:
> As usual, I'm coming in late to the discussion, so I may have missed
> something. But I find it amusing that I don't see where anyone
> mentioned that the story is not necessarily a story of time travel
> (i.e. not science fiction <grin>). The whole thing is pretty
> ambiguous. Bruce Willis's character may really have just been crazy
This has been mentioned to me, but I just don't buy it. I mean, it's not
impossible, but the movie is REALLY cheating if it's all in his head.
Either it's all in the kid's head and it all occurs between him
witnessing the shooting and getting out to the parking lot (which would
be a pretty detailed dream (or whatever) for a kid to come up with in
about 10 minutes or so). Of course, the timing could be off, or maybe he
never even saw a shooting, but there's no evidence of that and if that's
the case, the flick is cheating on such a high level that ANY film could
be subject to this line of thinking. I mean, MAYBE all of Star Wars is
in Luke's head. You never really know, but it'd be REALLY cheating if
it's the case.
OR it's all in Cole's head, at which point he's making up so much that
it's the same as the Luke analogy (well, I guess Luke would have had to
have dreamed for 2 more films).
Naw, it really happened.
vph
Mustard Gas Sally
On 6 Nov 1996, Maria Vitale say:
> There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
> There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop. There is a loop.
Sorry, normally I agree with you, but there's no loop.
It's all a POV thing. As someone mentioned, there's no connection
between old and young Cole. It's more sort of a U.
Cole gets back to where he was before, but then he dies. End of line.
We're just arguing semantics here, but I don't really see how a loop
comes into it. Just a straight line with some wiggles towards the end.
I guess you could consider it a loop, but since it's not a loop from
anyone's POV, I wouldn't consider it one. It's not even a loop from
Time's point of view, since even with the jumping back and forth (from
Cole's POV), it just chugs along at its regular pace.
So if it's a loop, in what way is it a loop? Or rather, to WHO is it a
loop?
vph