*** Official THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jesse M.]

(SPOILERS)

Can he only go back to where he has blackouts or does he only have blackouts at points that he has gone back?

I think it's the latter. He had blackouts in the past because his future self was controlling his mind at those points.

But what about the fact that in the "original" history we saw at the start of the movie, what happened during the blackouts didn't always seem to match what Evan did when we saw him revisit these periods later in the movie? For example, although he did draw the picture of his adult self standing over the dead skinheads in the original history, he didn't skewer his hands like we saw him do when he went back to that period. An even bigger one is the fact that in the original history, after the blackout in the basement with Kayleigh's dad ended, he found himself naked, and from the conversation with the waitress version of Kayleigh later it seemed something even worse than just taking off his clothes had happened during the blackout. Even if you assume the "original" history was not original at all, that it had already been messed with by versions of Evan from previous histories that we never saw, why would any adult version of Evan agree to take his clothes off? And assuming there were previous histories raises some other questions too, like why Evan had no memories of them even though he continued to remember the psych-student timeline, the frat boy timeline, etc.

My question is, why did Kayleigh's dad act so strangely when Evan first went back to chew him out? He acted as if he had already experienced the event and realized that Evan was somehow changing it.

I think he just acted strangely because Evan seemed to be talking in an impossibly adult way for a kid that young, and completely different from how he had been talking up until that point, so it looked as if he had been posessed or something, and whatever was doing the posessing was condemning the father and telling him the future consequences of his actions.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Just saw this last night, and I must say, I was extremely impressed with the story and execution. The acting was okay (not bad at all), but nobody stood out as "irreplaceable" (i.e., anybody could've stood in for any of the cast, and it likely would've come out just fine). I'm a bit disheartened to see it only has a 29% on RottenTomatoes (and a worse 27% on metacritic). I wholly disagree on those who say the story is muddled or makes no sense -- to the contrary, it makes a LOT of sense, even seeing it on the first time. I also think that for many (not all, just some) people, critics or otherwise, this film is a "resonation" film -- i.e., if it resonates with your spirit or your experiences, you're going to rate it higher than you would if it doesn't. I also think it's very male-centric in its nature, so it may (not absolutely, but may) turn off a large segment of the female moviegoing (or critic) crowd.

This film resonated strongly with me; I think I empathize greatly with the premise of the story, having not only never had a relationship, but have always daydreamed about alternate realities of "what if" with some of the women/girls I've fallen head-over-heels for in my 30-some-odd years of living (no, I've not had any blackouts of my own, thankyouverymuch ). Some of those encounters I thought could've been a soulmate, and so the ending of this film was EXTREMELY powerful for me. I thought Kutcher's sacrifice at the end meant FAR, FAR more than his physical sacrifice to save the woman and baby. I'm quite pleased with the bittersweet ending, but I'm curious to find out what the director's "true" ending would be. Count me as one who will be picking up this film on DVD when it comes out this year.

 

[Ted Lee]

rented this from netflix, but got the director's cut. found it enjoyable and i liked the idea of how you could change the future by doing just one simple act. i absolutely believe that's possible.

was also surprised by kutcher's acting ability. i thought he did a great job in a serious role.

on a side note, since i only saw the director's cut ... can someone explain how it was different then the theatrical release version?

 

[Colton]

What was he planning to do with the butcher knife in the kitchen? I know he uses he blackout moment to go back to save his mom from lung cancer
, but what was he planning to do with the knife?

- Colton

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I just saw the Directors Cut of the film and I enjoyed it but I have to say that I would have liked it even more if Kutcher hadnt been in it. I know he got the film greenlit after sitting around for years but his idea of a deep Acting is moving his eyes from side to side with his mouth open. That is ok in a comedy like Dude Where's MY Car but doesnt work here.

When he gives this look

On the disc it has the three other endings. Feel Good ending, Stalker ending(as they called it)and the question mark ending.

 

[JasonRH]

Can someone explain the "stigmata" scene for me? I don't understand why his cell mate would see the change. Wouldn't Evan altering the past just have made him have the scars before he even entered prison? Wouldn't he be the only one to know that anything was different? Am I missing something?

 

[Robert TX]

 

[Robert TX]

I think the real question is... "would he have still wound up in prison?"

 

[Ted Lee]

i think that was the film's fatal flaw. it was too inconsistent. entertaining...yes...but still inconsistent.

in some cases, simply talking to someone (the dad) was able to make huge changes. yet, in other cases (like the stigmata thing), the only change was the scars suddenly appearing.

 

[Daniel DeLawter]

Really? I find that odd. Don't meet many people who believe in time travel.

 

[Ted Lee]

do you find my statement odd or the fact that i believe in time-travel?

seriously though, it only seems logical. if i go back in time and kill someone, think about how that would affect the future. or, what about that twilight zone episode where the guy has the opportunity to kill hitler (or something like that).

of course, if i went back in time and killed my grandfather, then how the heck could i be typing this right now? hmm....

 

[ChrisBEA]

Time travel could only exist hand in hand with alternate timelines. I don't think it owuld be possible to travel back within the same line. You could probably go foward, but as soon as you appear new line would branch off.

 

[JasonRH]

Ted, I agree.

 

[JonZ]

SPOILERS.....

"Wouldn't Evan altering the past just have made him have the scars before he even entered prison? Wouldn't he be the only one to know that anything was different?
i think that was the film's fatal flaw. it was too inconsistent. entertaining...yes...but still inconsistent.

in some cases, simply talking to someone (the dad) was able to make huge changes. yet, in other cases (like the stigmata thing), the only change was the scars suddenly appearing."

The talk to Kayleaghs father, being in front of the mailbox when it exploded and Lennys killing Tommy were all drastic enough to alter the future. In the case of the cigarette burn and the stigmata, he went back right away and nothing changed except the marks becuase it wasnt a change so drastic that it would alter reality. No one died,got blown up,etc.

Thats how I saw it anyway.

 

[TedT]

The trailer kind of turned me off. Looks like they flashed the whole movie from beginning til end in the span of 2 minutes.

But if you guys say that the trailer is misleading, I may actually check this out!

 

[Ted Lee]

yep...that's the exact same reasoning i had. it was a "mild event".

but, even then, we could extrapolate so much. maybe the school institutionalized him for doing such a bizarre act? or, he crippled himself permanently. or ... whatever. the point being that the movie wasn't consistent in the outcomes.

 

[Chris]

See, you'd think any kid who did that would get psychiatric care, like right away.. which would change things *shrug*

Him burning his belly on his own, and covering it up.. that would be a mild event.

 

[Al B. C]

Just wonderin'......why was he in a wheelchair if he got his arms blown off?

 

[Chris]

He blew parts of his legs off too.. OK, I've seen both now, and let me say.. I greatly prefer the theatrical ending over the "alternate" ending..


Wherein he terminates himself. This makes no sense. A child pre-born would not have the strength to really "kill themselves" faster then a medical doctor could stop it.. attempts to wrap an umbilicus, etc. I don't know, made no sense.

Really, I didn't care for either ending much; I thought there were several things he didn't try that he should have.. like why not tell his mother that the guy was an abuser, and see where that led? That was the one that bothered me most. If he knew the guy was a child abuser, why not just call CPS on him? The kids would have went to their mom which seemed to be the big cure, and he would have lived out a good life and not have told the girl he loved he was a psychopathic killer, which was not true.

 

[JasonRH]

That still doesn't explain why the immate would see it "as it happened". It would still have been done in the past and, as such, would not be visible at that moment. Also, the very fact that the marks appeared means that reality was altered. The immate would have no recollection of palms without the marks, no?, and certainly no recollection of being told to watch for such an event. It makes absolutely no sense.