Confusing endings (1 Viewer)

[Anders Englund]

Todd, I think you're making it overly complicated when explaining POTA:

First of all, and quite crucial, Thade didn't die (we can all agree on that). Attar, who said that humans and apes would live in peace from now on, may very well have meant it. But Thade is obviously very charismatic, and may, over time, have manipulated the opinion to suit his own needs. He may have staged a "violent human uproar" or something, which he "had to strike down". This is politics, folks, there is no need for time travel.

Besides, Leo travelled FAR into the future (from the apes point of view) when going home, and much changes over time. Hell, it's only ~50 years after WWII, some people are already debating the existence of death camps.


--Anders

 

[Grant Degs]

For an in depth discussion of time travel in 12 Monkeys
go to this link. I found it fascinating.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Ramp...0/monkeys.html
I love Sci-Fi but...
Going back in time is not possible. I'm familiar with
Einstien's theories. I don't think it is possible because
of all the paradoxes. Alternate dimensions/timelines are
just a cop out.

 

[Ryan L B]

i thought the shining confused the hell out of me even after 2 viewings. i still cant find out who the two little girls are, does Jack die in the end, and when he is chasing danny, is he trying to kill him.

also, was there a point to the little flick the glass house. if it is possible, can this be the offical thread insted of having 5 or 6 "can you explain "__________" to me. it would be much easier to me.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

does Jack die in the end, and when he is chasing danny, is he trying to kill him

I don't know what could be so confusing about either of those scenerios. Does Jack die? Well, he is shown sitting in the snow in the morning totally frozen. I guess it's possible he could have lived
Was he trying to kill him? Let's see, he's chasing him around with an axe after he's already killed the Scatman in the hall and bludgeoned Shelly Duvall with it. I'm putting my money on he was trying to kill him.
Bruce

 

[Duane M Davis]

...and the little girls were the daughters of Grady (the bartender) who he murdered.

**edit** oops, I was wrong. Its the Butler.

 

[Edwin-S]

deleted

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Ryan LB wrote:

David and his mother] are seen sleeping together and they both live happily ever after.

Shhhh! You haven't read any of the many A.I. threads, have you? They'll skewer you for not finding the whole ending "sad", and David not to be a misguided mecha, who never achieved his "real" objective. (Oh, and you missed the "Freudian angle", too.)
Shhhh!

 

[Justin_S]

Okay, could someone please explain the ending of CHASING SLEEP to me? I loved the film, but didn't get the ending at all.

 

[Jon Strong]

My friends dad is a proffesor at a college and I asked him about time travel.

He said that these people at MIT were actually SERIOUSLY going through and seeing if it could be done.

He said, out of the report he read, the only thing he could understand was that you could not go farther back (into the past) then when the actual time machine was made.

Makes sense to me.

 

[LukeB]

This isn't an ending per se, but I've seen "Ocean's Eleven" (2001) twice now, and I don't get:
The two guys in the end who are tailing Danny, Tess, and Rusty. Were they in on the heist the whole time or are they Benedict's people trying to get back at them? The two different people I've seen it didn't get it either, so while I'm assuming it's something easy and obvious I'm missing, I take solace in the fact that I am not the only one.

Someone want to clear that up for me?

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

With Ocean's Eleven...
I always thought it was Benedict's people trying to get back at them. There is no evidence in the rest of the film pointing at that they were in on the heist.
But... they didn't check the room when Danny was supposed to be getting beat up by the big tall bald guy. They could've been in on the heist or just very stupid. I'm still leaning towards they were trying to get back at them.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

-V

 

[Robert_eb]

Will someone please explain the last 15 minutes of Kubrick's 2001. I kinda have my own theory but would like to hear other opionions on this film.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Vince is 100% right on the boxing thing. Split decision is a WIN/LOSS situation, it simply indicates that the judges had some discrepencies. And split cards are always read with one guy's score winning, then the other guys, then the 3rd "tiebreaking" card.

Like

"The judges have a split decision...

116-112 for boxer A

114-113 for boxer B

117-111 for your winner...boxer A!"

Also, boxing is scored with 10 points for the round winner, 9 for the round loser. But there are other point reductions for things like a penalty which will get you minus 1 point in a round (example - low blow) even if you win it and many fights have a mandatory -1 point for being knocked down.

So if you lose the round and get knocked down but the other guy had a low blow the round could be 9-8 in favor of the other guy.

Why they don't just do 1-0 each round and add a point to the other guy on penalties/knockdowns...I don't know.

But if you go 12 rounds then your "perfect" score would be 120 and if there were no exceptional problems with the loser like a truly awful round, knock downs or penalties, nor any ties in any rounds, then the loser would have 108.

So in that series of films Vince is right...2 losses on film.

The reason for the happy ending is the effort to prove himself and love of his girlfriend.

 

[Ryan L B]

i think that many people still think that rocky wins the fight due to the happy ending.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

i think that many people still think that rocky wins the fight due to the happy ending.

Certainly that is possible- but I think you'd have to miss the point of the whole film in order to misunderstand. But that seems to happen often-- even films I don't consider ambigious in the slightest seem to be misinterpreted.

This thread is a good example that not everyone sees films the same way.

-V

 

[Ryan L B]

especally with 12 monkeys

 

[Jeremiah]

You are correct Vince and I was going to comment earlier but I wasn't sure about the ending. I wasn't sure if one judge had AC, another had R, and the third having a tie(1-1-1). If that was the case than it was a draw, but if it was 2-1 than it is quite obvious.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Cinema lets us fill in the blanks.

 

[EugeneR]

Slightly OT, but since it's been brought up--I've always thought that a split decision COULD be a draw--if two out of three judges had the fight even on the scorecards. Am I wrong and they just give it to the guy who a single judge scored as a winner?