Butterfly Effect: Too realistic for moviegoers?
#101
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by johnglass
Just caught this tonight, another from me.
A few questions for anyone that might know (*SPOILERS*):
1) I was lead to believe that Evan's brain trauma was caused by the flushing of old and adding of new memories (or something to that affect). But after the theatrical ending it appears he had no ill effects of the time travel at all. Is there something I missed, or is his dain still bramaged?
2) The doctor told him that everything was in his mind- the time travel, the alternate futures he had (personally I think I would have liked this ending, that he created all these worlds in his head as a way of dealing with killing the girl). I was under the impression that he lost all of his memories of the other alternate lifes and gained the memories he would have had every time he "jumped". If this is the case he wouldn't have known about the alternate worlds to tell the doctor. Am I missing something else here, or just looking too deep into it?
Just caught this tonight, another from me.
A few questions for anyone that might know (*SPOILERS*):
1) I was lead to believe that Evan's brain trauma was caused by the flushing of old and adding of new memories (or something to that affect). But after the theatrical ending it appears he had no ill effects of the time travel at all. Is there something I missed, or is his dain still bramaged?
2) The doctor told him that everything was in his mind- the time travel, the alternate futures he had (personally I think I would have liked this ending, that he created all these worlds in his head as a way of dealing with killing the girl). I was under the impression that he lost all of his memories of the other alternate lifes and gained the memories he would have had every time he "jumped". If this is the case he wouldn't have known about the alternate worlds to tell the doctor. Am I missing something else here, or just looking too deep into it?
The part near the end where he wakes in the hospital after having killed the little girl with the blockbuster - he goes to the doctor and asks for his journals... indeed, the doctor shouldn't have said what he said given the rules laid out by the film. That was a fault with the script in my opinion. The doctor says "we've been over this before" and "there were never any journals, etc..." The problem here is that they wouldn't have ever been through this before. I think it was dramatic license in order to make it clearer about his not having journals to work with and perhaps to give the doctor more screen time. They probably should've just had the doctor go "what journals are you talking about?" since he wouldn't really know what journals he was talking about or why he was asking and he wouldn't have had conversations about alternate realities and such... but then they would've had to introduce more scenes with him asking for journals and having people ask "what journals?" in order to make it clear to the audience that there weren't any journals. Perhaps a case of Hollywood assuming the audience is too dumb to figure out 2+2=4. In any case, it didn't go along with the rules that were set up by the film, but there's a few other things that didn't flow either - however they were less obvious and easy to overlook.
#102
DVD Talk Hero
I've put off reading this thread for a long time...
Well, you can count me in as another who just watched this (the TC) and really really liked it. I'm surprised that Aston would take this type of role but I thought he did okay. I've been telling people at work to check it out but to be prepared at some of the scenes. They were more intense than I expected... and that's a good thing.
It's always nice to get surprised by a movie and this one surprised me at how good it was. I only wished I had more time after watching the TC to see the DC but (because of Comic-Con) I'll have to wait until next week to watch the DC.
But I'm soooo looking forward to it
Well, you can count me in as another who just watched this (the TC) and really really liked it. I'm surprised that Aston would take this type of role but I thought he did okay. I've been telling people at work to check it out but to be prepared at some of the scenes. They were more intense than I expected... and that's a good thing.
It's always nice to get surprised by a movie and this one surprised me at how good it was. I only wished I had more time after watching the TC to see the DC but (because of Comic-Con) I'll have to wait until next week to watch the DC.
But I'm soooo looking forward to it
#103
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Trigger
He was getting new memories on top of his old ones... that's why he "seemed different" to people all the time. That's why when the doctor is explaining to his mother about his brain damage, he exclaims that it was as though he had crammed 40 years worth of memories in a short time or whatever. Also - if he lost all of these memories, why would he talk to the girl when she was a crack-whore and tell her she was happy once. No, he remembered everything... the montage of him "jumping" and events reversing was just to indicate that the events were undoing themselves rather than him not remembering them... So yeah, he remembered getting some in prison. Sad but true.
The part near the end where he wakes in the hospital after having killed the little girl with the blockbuster - he goes to the doctor and asks for his journals... indeed, the doctor shouldn't have said what he said given the rules laid out by the film. That was a fault with the script in my opinion. The doctor says "we've been over this before" and "there were never any journals, etc..." The problem here is that they wouldn't have ever been through this before. I think it was dramatic license in order to make it clearer about his not having journals to work with and perhaps to give the doctor more screen time. They probably should've just had the doctor go "what journals are you talking about?" since he wouldn't really know what journals he was talking about or why he was asking and he wouldn't have had conversations about alternate realities and such... but then they would've had to introduce more scenes with him asking for journals and having people ask "what journals?" in order to make it clear to the audience that there weren't any journals. Perhaps a case of Hollywood assuming the audience is too dumb to figure out 2+2=4. In any case, it didn't go along with the rules that were set up by the film, but there's a few other things that didn't flow either - however they were less obvious and easy to overlook.
He was getting new memories on top of his old ones... that's why he "seemed different" to people all the time. That's why when the doctor is explaining to his mother about his brain damage, he exclaims that it was as though he had crammed 40 years worth of memories in a short time or whatever. Also - if he lost all of these memories, why would he talk to the girl when she was a crack-whore and tell her she was happy once. No, he remembered everything... the montage of him "jumping" and events reversing was just to indicate that the events were undoing themselves rather than him not remembering them... So yeah, he remembered getting some in prison. Sad but true.
The part near the end where he wakes in the hospital after having killed the little girl with the blockbuster - he goes to the doctor and asks for his journals... indeed, the doctor shouldn't have said what he said given the rules laid out by the film. That was a fault with the script in my opinion. The doctor says "we've been over this before" and "there were never any journals, etc..." The problem here is that they wouldn't have ever been through this before. I think it was dramatic license in order to make it clearer about his not having journals to work with and perhaps to give the doctor more screen time. They probably should've just had the doctor go "what journals are you talking about?" since he wouldn't really know what journals he was talking about or why he was asking and he wouldn't have had conversations about alternate realities and such... but then they would've had to introduce more scenes with him asking for journals and having people ask "what journals?" in order to make it clear to the audience that there weren't any journals. Perhaps a case of Hollywood assuming the audience is too dumb to figure out 2+2=4. In any case, it didn't go along with the rules that were set up by the film, but there's a few other things that didn't flow either - however they were less obvious and easy to overlook.
Spoiler:
But I now have something for you bro about the journals, all I'm gonna say is that.......it's in there, caught it tonight - bad ass. make sure you follow up on it (sorry, this one is damn good and I don't want to give it away) .
My main reason for this additional reply is.................
Spoiler:
Also, did you notice who picked up K in the red van when Evan messed things up again???.................shit man, didin't even realize until tonight!!!!
#104
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Rival11
Trigger, you are one bad mofo!!!! Thanks for telling me one of the biggest clues in the film, I would have never caught it....
f****** awesome.
But I now have something for you bro about the journals, all I'm gonna say is that.......it's in there, caught it tonight - bad ass. make sure you follow up on it (sorry, this one is damn good and I don't want to give it away) .
My main reason for this additional reply is.................
Please!!! somebody tell me because I honestly can't figure this one out!!!
Also, did you notice who picked up K in the red van when Evan messed things up again???.................shit man, didin't even realize until tonight!!!!
Trigger, you are one bad mofo!!!! Thanks for telling me one of the biggest clues in the film, I would have never caught it....
Spoiler:
But I now have something for you bro about the journals, all I'm gonna say is that.......it's in there, caught it tonight - bad ass. make sure you follow up on it (sorry, this one is damn good and I don't want to give it away) .
My main reason for this additional reply is.................
Spoiler:
Also, did you notice who picked up K in the red van when Evan messed things up again???.................shit man, didin't even realize until tonight!!!!
#105
Retired
I saw this over the weekend and really liked it. I watched the DC and then the theatrical cut. The DC was much better. I'd give it a 3/4 compared to a 2/4 for the theatrical cut. The TC ending was just to soft for the movie and killed the mood/tone IMO.
#107
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Here it is:
As for the guy in the van..........that's when K started to get into prostitution (maybe not immediately but she was hichhiking) and the dude in the van was none other than:
Spoiler:
As for the guy in the van..........that's when K started to get into prostitution (maybe not immediately but she was hichhiking) and the dude in the van was none other than:
Spoiler:
Last edited by Rival11; 07-20-04 at 09:05 PM.
#109
DVD Talk Legend
I just watched the theater version and thought it was good, I then watched the last couple chapters of the directors cut. It was OK, but I really liked the ending of the theater version better.
By the way, what other differences are there between the two versions? I don't remember a van, I assume that's from the director's cut version only?
By the way, what other differences are there between the two versions? I don't remember a van, I assume that's from the director's cut version only?
#110
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Heat
By the way, what other differences are there between the two versions? I don't remember a van, I assume that's from the director's cut version only?
By the way, what other differences are there between the two versions? I don't remember a van, I assume that's from the director's cut version only?
#111
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched the TC today with a friend and enjoyed it immensely. I want to watch it the DC with my friend but am not sure if it would be significantly different than the TC in terms of being tedious to watch seeing it so soon after.
Is it different enough(I know the ending is) but will my friend be *rolls eyes* constantly?
Thanks
Is it different enough(I know the ending is) but will my friend be *rolls eyes* constantly?
Thanks
#112
DVD Talk Legend
I’ve been thinking about this movie some more and I still feel that the ending to the theatrical cut (“TC”) is better than the ending to the director’s cut (“DC”).
SPOILERS
In the TC he finally jumps to an early enough point that he can alter his personal relationship with the girl he has loved his entire life. Self sacrifice. Now, his entire current life will be filled with the yearning for the girl he has lived his entire previous lives for, but everybody besides him has a normal life. His life is normal, per se, but the woman he loves and has loved doesn't know he even exists.
In the DC he jumps to an even earlier point (just prior to birth) and commits suicide. It’s just too easy of a way out. And if the mother had had three fetuses die just prior to childbirth before, don’t you think that they would have just done a c-section before then? Also, the stimuli to make the jumps was either written journals, or photos, or movies. This is the fourth time that the father has filmed his wife about to give birth, only to lose the child?
I just feel that sacrificing himself by giving up the girl he has loved thoughout several lives in order to make everybody else’s lives better (or normal) is more tragic than just going back and killing himself.
My $0.02.
SPOILERS
In the TC he finally jumps to an early enough point that he can alter his personal relationship with the girl he has loved his entire life. Self sacrifice. Now, his entire current life will be filled with the yearning for the girl he has lived his entire previous lives for, but everybody besides him has a normal life. His life is normal, per se, but the woman he loves and has loved doesn't know he even exists.
In the DC he jumps to an even earlier point (just prior to birth) and commits suicide. It’s just too easy of a way out. And if the mother had had three fetuses die just prior to childbirth before, don’t you think that they would have just done a c-section before then? Also, the stimuli to make the jumps was either written journals, or photos, or movies. This is the fourth time that the father has filmed his wife about to give birth, only to lose the child?
I just feel that sacrificing himself by giving up the girl he has loved thoughout several lives in order to make everybody else’s lives better (or normal) is more tragic than just going back and killing himself.
My $0.02.
#113
DVD Talk Hero
Heat, I just watched the DC and I agree with you. Evan's solution in the TC is smarter, better for at least one other person (Evan's mother because she does not lose another child), and more economical in terms of all the changes he would cause. The DC ending is overkill.
My reason for preferring the TC is not that it is "nicer"; but that's a good bonus.
My reason for preferring the TC is not that it is "nicer"; but that's a good bonus.
#114
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Heat
I’ve been thinking about this movie some more and I still feel that the ending to the theatrical cut (“TC”) is better than the ending to the director’s cut (“DC”).
SPOILERS
In the TC he finally jumps to an early enough point that he can alter his personal relationship with the girl he has loved his entire life. Self sacrifice. Now, his entire current life will be filled with the yearning for the girl he has lived his entire previous lives for, but everybody besides him has a normal life. His life is normal, per se, but the woman he loves and has loved doesn't know he even exists.
In the DC he jumps to an even earlier point (just prior to birth) and commits suicide. It’s just too easy of a way out. And if the mother had had three fetuses die just prior to childbirth before, don’t you think that they would have just done a c-section before then? Also, the stimuli to make the jumps was either written journals, or photos, or movies. This is the fourth time that the father has filmed his wife about to give birth, only to lose the child?
I just feel that sacrificing himself by giving up the girl he has loved thoughout several lives in order to make everybody else’s lives better (or normal) is more tragic than just going back and killing himself.
My $0.02.
I’ve been thinking about this movie some more and I still feel that the ending to the theatrical cut (“TC”) is better than the ending to the director’s cut (“DC”).
SPOILERS
In the TC he finally jumps to an early enough point that he can alter his personal relationship with the girl he has loved his entire life. Self sacrifice. Now, his entire current life will be filled with the yearning for the girl he has lived his entire previous lives for, but everybody besides him has a normal life. His life is normal, per se, but the woman he loves and has loved doesn't know he even exists.
In the DC he jumps to an even earlier point (just prior to birth) and commits suicide. It’s just too easy of a way out. And if the mother had had three fetuses die just prior to childbirth before, don’t you think that they would have just done a c-section before then? Also, the stimuli to make the jumps was either written journals, or photos, or movies. This is the fourth time that the father has filmed his wife about to give birth, only to lose the child?
I just feel that sacrificing himself by giving up the girl he has loved thoughout several lives in order to make everybody else’s lives better (or normal) is more tragic than just going back and killing himself.
My $0.02.
#115
Guest
The problem with the DC is that there is no way in to assure, or even raise the probabilty greatly, that the girl will go live with her mother. At the point in the TC he choose to mouth off to her, he did so with the notion that "at that time the only thing keeping her there was him" (I believe this is correct, been a while since seeing this version). In the DC, there are thousands of things that will occur differently since he and his mom are not involved in their families lives.
#116
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Saw it yesterday, GREAT film! I agree that this is a realistic film. Obviously, the time warp is not being considered in that statement but the actions taken by the characters esp. Ashton.
I watched the TC and have a question. Was the ending the onlydifference in both cuts or were there other things as well?
I watched the TC and have a question. Was the ending the onlydifference in both cuts or were there other things as well?
#117
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by gmal2003
Saw it yesterday, GREAT film! I agree that this is a realistic film. Obviously, the time warp is not being considered in that statement but the actions taken by the characters esp. Ashton.
I watched the TC and have a question. Was the ending the onlydifference in both cuts or were there other things as well?
Saw it yesterday, GREAT film! I agree that this is a realistic film. Obviously, the time warp is not being considered in that statement but the actions taken by the characters esp. Ashton.
I watched the TC and have a question. Was the ending the onlydifference in both cuts or were there other things as well?
Spoiler:
#118
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sachse, TX
Posts: 4,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just saw the theater release on Saturday and I liked the flick. I didn't get the scene in prison though where he does his back-in-time thing in his cell w/ his cellmate watching.
Spoiler:
#120
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bay Area CA
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, in the DC, how the heck does a fetus have the brain ability to maintain the knowledge that he must die?
Does anyone know why Evan's father try to kill him when he visited. Has he been time traveling with the photo album like Evan? Perhaps he needed to kill Evan to prevent Even from suffering through all that traveling, or was it to ensure his own death. I can think of all sort of possibilities but my head hurts when I think of both of them doing all the chances simultaneously.
Does anyone know why Evan's father try to kill him when he visited. Has he been time traveling with the photo album like Evan? Perhaps he needed to kill Evan to prevent Even from suffering through all that traveling, or was it to ensure his own death. I can think of all sort of possibilities but my head hurts when I think of both of them doing all the chances simultaneously.
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problems I had with the film.
- Too much hollywood stereotyping. i.e. Frat Boys, Goth roommate, prison inmates, hooker version of K
- Prison inmates paid off the prison guard 2 cigarrettes to let them butt-f__k Evan. Are the guards really that friggin corrupt and also in need of smokes?
- The idea that a college student would be sent to
- The Goth punks extreme hatred for Frat Boy Evan in the hall way at college was unrealistic
- The reality where the girlfriend became a
- Evan walking around half naked in a girls college dorm during the day, even in the girls shower room with no problem. Naked girl had no issue with it. Never happen!
- Major Blockbuster issue.
- The director never even attempted to explain the phenomenon that allowed Evan and his father to go back in time.
- In the DC,
- Too much hollywood stereotyping. i.e. Frat Boys, Goth roommate, prison inmates, hooker version of K
- Prison inmates paid off the prison guard 2 cigarrettes to let them butt-f__k Evan. Are the guards really that friggin corrupt and also in need of smokes?
- The idea that a college student would be sent to
Spoiler:
- The Goth punks extreme hatred for Frat Boy Evan in the hall way at college was unrealistic
- The reality where the girlfriend became a
Spoiler:
- Evan walking around half naked in a girls college dorm during the day, even in the girls shower room with no problem. Naked girl had no issue with it. Never happen!
- Major Blockbuster issue.
Spoiler:
- The director never even attempted to explain the phenomenon that allowed Evan and his father to go back in time.
- In the DC,
Spoiler:
Last edited by Jamers; 08-09-04 at 04:15 PM.
#123
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I watched this for the first time recently and had a lot of problems with it. This movie pissed me off, for wasting a really interesting idea. First of all, the whole point of the butterfly effect in nature is that a very small thing can create a massive change as things progress. In this movie, everything that he does to try to change things is something massive, it is never small. Even when he tries to prove his gift to his cellmate. He slams his hands down on the two paper spikes? Why not just give himself a bad papercut or something.
And I never got a good sense of what he was going to back to change, he never had a real gameplan, it all seemed like he made it up as he went. If he knows the consequences of his actions by having already gone back to change things, then why wouldn't he begin to plan ahead, to try to find an easy and non-disruptive way to undo stuff? It seemed like the film was being tragic just to be tragic, with nothing really driving it other than stupidity.
And the whole idea that his father, and potentially grandfather, had the same illness...what does that add to his story other than some idea of fate, which according to this movie, is bullshit, because you can change your destiny at will.
Just my thoughts from just having rented this for the first and only time. I'm mostly frustrated that this was such an interesting idea wasted on this film. I would like to have seen an intelligent director tackle something like this, like Christopher Nolan. I would have like to have seen him try to change things in small ways, but still have something turn out wrong. That would have been more tragic in the end. The fact that he completely turns everything upside down everytime he goes back is just pointless in the end. I never really felt sorry for him, because he brought it all on himself eventually, but not out of hubris or anything, but by pure stupidity.
And I never got a good sense of what he was going to back to change, he never had a real gameplan, it all seemed like he made it up as he went. If he knows the consequences of his actions by having already gone back to change things, then why wouldn't he begin to plan ahead, to try to find an easy and non-disruptive way to undo stuff? It seemed like the film was being tragic just to be tragic, with nothing really driving it other than stupidity.
And the whole idea that his father, and potentially grandfather, had the same illness...what does that add to his story other than some idea of fate, which according to this movie, is bullshit, because you can change your destiny at will.
Just my thoughts from just having rented this for the first and only time. I'm mostly frustrated that this was such an interesting idea wasted on this film. I would like to have seen an intelligent director tackle something like this, like Christopher Nolan. I would have like to have seen him try to change things in small ways, but still have something turn out wrong. That would have been more tragic in the end. The fact that he completely turns everything upside down everytime he goes back is just pointless in the end. I never really felt sorry for him, because he brought it all on himself eventually, but not out of hubris or anything, but by pure stupidity.
#124
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Luc TC
OK, in the DC, how the heck does a fetus have the brain ability to maintain the knowledge that he must die?
...
OK, in the DC, how the heck does a fetus have the brain ability to maintain the knowledge that he must die?
...
#125
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Second Star on the right, and straight on til' morning...
Posts: 14,808
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Ok, as I said, there were quite a few holes, but some of the ones mentioned are not the holes.
The man at the end of the story is Evan's mothers NEW HUSBAND. After the third stillbirth, she divorces Jason and marries again and has a daughter, who is not "afflicted".
And the "third stillbirth" vs "second stillbirth" - she told Evan about the two stillbirths, her voice mentioning the third stillbirth would be being made to her daughter, not to Evan.
As for brain in an about to be newborn - well Evan acted like an adult in a 7 year old - not a big stretch to assume he could take ONE MAJOR action as an about to be newborn that was based on an adult desire.
As to other holes - Jamers indeed comes up with a few of them.
But overall, when I "dismissed" some of the problems (like yeah - the prison stuff was quite a bit over the top for self defense), I actually did enjoy the movie - and I didn't think I would (which is why I waited till I rented the dvd vs seeing it in the theater)
The man at the end of the story is Evan's mothers NEW HUSBAND. After the third stillbirth, she divorces Jason and marries again and has a daughter, who is not "afflicted".
And the "third stillbirth" vs "second stillbirth" - she told Evan about the two stillbirths, her voice mentioning the third stillbirth would be being made to her daughter, not to Evan.
As for brain in an about to be newborn - well Evan acted like an adult in a 7 year old - not a big stretch to assume he could take ONE MAJOR action as an about to be newborn that was based on an adult desire.
As to other holes - Jamers indeed comes up with a few of them.
But overall, when I "dismissed" some of the problems (like yeah - the prison stuff was quite a bit over the top for self defense), I actually did enjoy the movie - and I didn't think I would (which is why I waited till I rented the dvd vs seeing it in the theater)