or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 12 Monkeys; what's up with the ending??? [** SPOILERS WARNING **]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

12 Monkeys; what's up with the ending??? [** SPOILERS WARNING **] - Page 2

post #31 of 98
Yes, Matt, that Vertigo sequence is amazing. Since this is a spoiler-tagged thread, I guess we can discuss it without being coy:

Cole and Dr. Railly are hiding out in a movie theater, where a Hitchcock marathon is playing. During "Vertigo," Cole reflects that he's seen this before, but it was different. Of course, the movie couldn't change, so he observes that he had changed. (I love that pearl of wisdom.) Kathryn and he don simple disguises, and hers is revealed in striking parallel to the famous shot of Kim Novak from "Vertigo," which had just been shown.

I also appreciated that Gilliam incorporated my favorite line from "Vertigo," where Kim Novak is talking to a redwood tree, pointing to the rings inside: "Here I was born, and there I died. It was only a moment for you; you took no notice of me."
post #32 of 98
IAM4UK, the spoiler tag only applies to spoilers relating to 12 Monkeys, not any and all spoilers you would like to throw out there.
post #33 of 98
Speaking of time-travel movies, I thought "The Jacket" was really good as well. I enjoyed it more than The Butterfly Effect.
post #34 of 98
Good point, NoThru22. If you're concerned that the quote from "Vertigo" was a spoiler, don't worry. It sounds like you might be interested in watching that classic Hitchcock film, but haven't yet seen it. If that is the case, I highly recommend it as one of the greatest movies ever made.
post #35 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

BTW someone should modify the thread title for spoilers before the police come.. I'd be bummed if I hadn't seen the movie and wandered in by mistake


Don't worry about it...I saw everything EXCEPT the ending...

Another TG movie I couldn't make it thru...
post #36 of 98
I am not criticizing or afraid of that particular spoiler, I was just pointing out for the future in case you ruin a current movie for me in a different movie's thread.
post #37 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mde71 View Post

Speaking of time-travel movies, I thought "The Jacket" was really good as well. I enjoyed it more than The Butterfly Effect.

That is..if (spoiler about The Jacket)\\

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
you want to believe that he was actually able to travel in time..he may have died from the gunshot wound, ala another movie from the 90s and the whole movie was his experience just before dying.
post #38 of 98
Nice discussion and I really liked 12M as well as the Jacket. My favorite time travel stuff is in one of the Bill & Ted movies where they just get absurd about it.
post #39 of 98
Thread Starter 
>>> Originally Posted by PainterPaul
What about the last scene with the female scientist who was in Insurance. Did she save the world, or, did she maintain her power in her present by assuring James failure?

>>> Originally Posted by IAM4UK
She was to insure that the future "scientists" could pursue a way back to the surface. Throughout the movie, characters made it clear that nobody could stop the disaster that befell humanity. All of the major events up until Cole was sent to explore above ground had already happened by the time the movie starts, and none of them could be altered. However, the future could be improved by knowledge from the past.

NOTHRU22 said re the above:

>>> More specifically, they wanted a sample of the original, raw virus so that they could device a vaccine to let them return to the surface in the future. They couldn't use it to alter the past and prevent it from ever happening.

The question was not answered for me.

James fails he is killed he never made it back with a virus sample (nor did he want to, but he did leave a message about the corrected history which is what got him killed, really). So the future was tipped off about whom it really was who spread the virus, etc.

So in the last scene was the female Insurance scientist who was on the plane next to the virus-spreader, there in order to bring back one of his samples so the future race might return to the surface, or, was she there to insure the virus did indeed spread so that she, and the other scientists, might maintain their power (as they were portrayed as having total power when scenes flipped back to the future plus at no time during the future scenes, were any of the scientists nice).

. I really liked this movie. But there may be a few ways to interpret it. I am very happy to read the various opinions on this film, as it helps me understand it better. I have purposely not listened to Gilliam's Director comments at this point. This is really no big deal, but neither is the point of any other film a big deal. It runs, you understand it, it runs, you don't. In my case, it ran, I understood most of it (liked it all) but blanked at the ending and because I liked it so much wanted to pursue it further.

I also have an underlying feeling that as a viewer, I was enormously drawn to this film by its initial theme, but (I am thinking) due to a lacking story-line, I'm now trying to fill in what were unresolved gaps.

Strictly speaking, I think a film should stand on its own, and all conclusions should be made specifically on the film's content. I will watch this film again in the near future, so thanks for any and all the input which may help me like the film even more.
post #40 of 98
Paul, the point of the movie was that they can't change the past. And in fact, Bruce Willis went back in time and didn't change anything because he remembered the scene at the airport from his own childhood. The scientists are not trying to preserve their power at all, they just want the sample of the vaccine to reverse engineer it. I thought it was pretty clear. They even state it a few times you can't change the past.
post #41 of 98
Painter Paul, your last post was thought-provoking, and I thank you for offering those takes on the "insurance" line. I had thought like NoThru22 in his reply to you, but I accept that your other possiblilty has merit as well. This is a great movie.
post #42 of 98
Thread Starter 
NoTHRU,

>>> They even state it a few times you can't change the past.

If that is true and I'm not saying you are wrong then why did what's his name with the scarred face insist James shoot the virus-spreader? He would have been a hero'. Killing the virus-spreader would have at least kept the virus from spreading all around the world (it was already spread in the airport, though)

The female Insurance scientist in the last scene, looked at first like she was there because James failed to kill the guy and so she was there to finish what James could not do; namely kill the guy. If this is so, then the future would have certainly been altered. I guess the question is, would she have appeared at all had James succeeded? We don't know. Maybe she was going to kill the guy, get the virus bottles, and jet back to the future or maybe just manhandle the vials from him, and jet back to the future. In either case, taking the bottles away from him would have made it impossible for him to further spread the virus beyond his home location dead or aliveagain, altering the future.

I'm going to do some more thinking/discussing, and watch the film again and see what happens.

IAM4UK,

I did some research and found a few reviews along my alternate interpretation, though much better explained.

Here, check this out: http://www.sff.net/people/rothman/12_monkeys.htp
post #43 of 98
I've been wanting to take a more active part in this thread but I have to watch the movie again (which I've been wanting to anyway) and I just haven't had time. Does anyone have the HD-DVD; is it worth an upgrade?
post #44 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

Does anyone have the HD-DVD; is it worth an upgrade?


NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Fred, say it ain't so!
post #45 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

I've been wanting to take a more active part in this thread but I have to watch the movie again (which I've been wanting to anyway) and I just haven't had time. Does anyone have the HD-DVD; is it worth an upgrade?

Review of the HD-DVD:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=24837

Excerpts:

What the HD DVD has that the previous DVD versions don't is detail, detail, detail. Lines on people s faces, stitches, facial scars, even brush strokes on paintings are all crystal clear. Every single little archaic mechanism in the future is completely visible, as is the silhouette of that hamster in its wheel. There is absolutely no artifacting to be found, and this is the best I've seen the movie look outside of a movie theater. Might it look better with a little sprucing up? Probably. But what we get here is easily a quantum leap over the picture quality of the DVD versions.

The Audio:
The audio, on the other hand, could use some work. The voices sound tinny and faraway, and the overall track just lacks power. This is the same Dolby Digital mix as was found on the past two special editions on regular DVD, and I'd say it's time for a remix. Annoyingly, the DTS track from the DTS-only DVD has been dropped on the HD DVD. Also present in a French 5.1 track and an English 2.0 track.

The Conclusion:
12 Monkeys is a unique, bizarre, thought-provoking film that displays director Terry Gilliam at the top of his talents. It's an unforgettable ride, and this HD DVD release is the best it's looked to date outside of a movie theater. While the audio could use a little help, the feature commentary and making-of documentary make this disc a must-own.

- - -

$30 retail, $20 at Amazon. It looks like you and your money are soon to be parted.
post #46 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Fred, say it ain't so!

What??
post #47 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

What??


NOT YOU!!!

NOT TO THE DARKSIDE!!!!

Once a Jedi, always a Jedi...did you not listen to Yoda's training?

I've been wounded!
I....shouldn't...have....left...you....alone....arrrrrgghhhh ....
Freeeeedddd......
post #48 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

NOT YOU!!!

NOT TO THE DARKSIDE!!!!

Once a Jedi, always a Jedi...did you not listen to Yoda's training?

I've been wounded!
I....shouldn't...have....left...you....alone....arrrrrgghhhh ....
Freeeeedddd......

Hehe- not to derail the thread completely but so far none of BD's PQ benefits on paper have translated to the real world, I like HD-DVD's current selection more (like, say, 12 Monkeys ) and most important I got the player for 1/4 the cost of the BD player. I'm sure I'll eventually have a BD player too (unless the format war resolves pretty quickly which is unlikely) but right now I'm a happy camper. OK, don't want to get the thread shut down so PM me with any responses
post #49 of 98
This will be a stain on my soul for the rest of my days...
I hope you will find it within you to forgive me for what I have done....
noooooooo......
post #50 of 98
Reviews of the Sony PS3 say that the included Blu-Ray player (PS3 w/60 GB HDD for $599 - now in stock and shipping from BestBuy.com) has better PQ than the stand-alone Blu-Ray units, and a $25 optional remote supposedly makes it a respectable DVD player unit.
post #51 of 98
There you go, Fred.
Get the PS3 and you have all bases covered.
post #52 of 98
I probably will in a couple months.
post #53 of 98
My source for this information:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127881/article.html

"Though expensive for a console, the PS3 is a veritable bargain if you're in the market for a Blu-ray player, as dedicated Blu-ray players cost between about $900 for the Philips BDP9000, which just went on sale this month, and $1500 for the forthcoming Pioneer Elite BDP-HD1, due out by the end of the year. Moreover, in our preliminary tests the PS3 produced sharper and generally better images than did the Samsung BD P-1000 Blu-ray player we've previously tested. Add on a $25 remote (not included), and the console makes a more-than-adequate Blu-ray player."
post #54 of 98
If Bruce Willis would have shot the virus carrier then the future he came from would've never happened and he would've never been sent back in time. Most time travel movies ignore conceits like these, but this one seemed to hold pretty true to it.
post #55 of 98
Now that eweiss is already involved, I have a question. Please no religious talk ... but was it a coincidence that Terry Gilliam named the potential savior to the world James Cole (J. C.)?

James Cole (J. C.) is a Christ-like figure, at the end of the film, sent from the future world to try and save this world for the benefit of all humanity.

His death, caused by chasing Dr. Peters, may make it possible for the world to live, by letting the scientists know where to find an original form of the virus.

At the end of the film Jose says "They gave you a pardon" (he who is without sin). Is Jose a Judas-like figure?

Remember, no religious talk.

BTW, did I say that this is one of my favorite films of all time.
post #56 of 98
Hmmm- that's pretty subtle, I sure never caught it. But writers love little symbolic touches like that so, sure, it's possible!
post #57 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoThru22 View Post

If Bruce Willis would have shot the virus carrier then the future he came from would've never happened and he would've never been sent back in time. Most time travel movies ignore conceits like these, but this one seemed to hold pretty true to it.

I always thought that the time travel was part of an unalterable past, reconstructing that the Bruce Willis character had memories of seeing his own death as a child.
post #58 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOBE View Post

Now that eweiss is already involved, I have a question. Please no religious talk ... but was it a coincidence that Terry Gilliam named the potential savior to the world James Cole (J. C.)?

James Cole (J. C.) is a Christ-like figure, at the end of the film, sent from the future world to try and save this world for the benefit of all humanity.

His death, caused by chasing Dr. Peters, may make it possible for the world to live, by letting the scientists know where to find an original form of the virus.

At the end of the film Jose says "They gave you a pardon" (he who is without sin). Is Jose a Judas-like figure?

Remember, no religious talk.

BTW, did I say that this is one of my favorite films of all time.

Got me. (It would be really subtle if Gilliam had made his name Ian Xavier, for the I. X. would have represented Jesus's name in Greek - IHCOYC XPICTOC.)

I wonder if the commentary discusses this?

I may have to get the DVD - $9.99 at Best Buy - and watch it again. Intriguing.
post #59 of 98
Gilliam did not write "12 Monkeys," and claims not to have watched the short photoplay on which it is based. The writers may well have considered Cole a Christ-figure, and DOBE's observations are truly very interesting; however, I never had the impression that Gilliam was pushing that allusion.
post #60 of 98
From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Monkeys

James Cole (initials "J. C.") is a Christ-figure, "sent from another world to try and save this world for the benefit of all humanity." [1] His death, caused by chasing Dr. Peters, makes it possible for the (future) world to live, by letting the scientists know where to find a non-mutated form of the virus.

The movie operates on the premise of a "fixed timeline" the past cannot be changed, a viewpoint known as the Novikov self-consistency principle.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › 12 Monkeys; what's up with the ending??? [** SPOILERS WARNING **]