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

[Matthew Chmiel]

Did they show him light the dog on fire? No. Implied. (We see the pre-lighting and the post-lighting, but that's it.) The character of Tommy was supposed to be one fucked up human being. In our society, causing animal cruelty is a lot worse than actually killing a human being (God knows why, but that's just how it is). By Tommy beating the crap out of the guy in the movie theater shows to the audience that the character is evil. Showing him light the dog on fire not only points out to the audience that he is evil, but he's also mentally fucked up due to his father.

In Final Destination 2, the gruesome gore and violence is in there for shocks (and laughs). In The Butterfly Effect the (implication of) violence is in there not only for shock, but to get a true feeling of what these characters are like and what they're going through.

 

[Bill J]

I think it's safe to assume that most people already know that prison is dark and unpleasant (and that includes the people who have not actually been there). However, due to the amount of time Kutcher spends in prison and his ability to conveniently remove himself from that moment in time, I wouldn't his ability to adapt (or lack of) is a key element to the film.

Off topic: Throughout the film why was it seemingly impossible for Kutcher to receive information about his past from actual people rather than his journals?

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

The only people he would know who would remember his past would be his mother, Lenny, Tommy, or Kayleigh. His mother knew as much as Evan remembered, Lenny was mentally fucked up after killing the mother/child and watching Evan's dog die with nothing he could do, Kayleigh didn't want to remember the past (thus her killing herself after Evan contacted her), and Evan wanted nothing to do with Tommy (as he was an evil prick). In my eyes, once Evan and his mother moved is the last he had to do with the characters, thus when he mentions to Thumper that they should celebrate cause he hasn't had a blackout in seven years.

 

[Bill J]

I don't think that is necessarily true. I'd probably have to see the film again since it jumped around a lot, but perhaps he could have gotten more information from his teacher and friends' parents (mainly the child molester). Now that I'm thinking about it, since the characters were constantly changing, there probably isn't a true answer to this.


I thought that the homage to Se7en was pretty clever, since keeping journals to document everything were integral parts of both films. However, I was confused that Dumb & Dumber was showing at the same theater since the release dates of both films were almost a year apart.

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

All three films were released by New Line... and say if the film took place in present day (2004), then when they saw Se7en would be 1997. That is unless the film takes place in 2002.

 

[Jason Walstrom]

I've never thought much about Ashton Kutcher as an actor or cared much for his bumbling doofus role on 'that 70"s show.' It was the fantastic Trailer to The Butterfly Effect that got me in the theater and I had no preconcieved ideas on what AK performance would be like. I bought into the premise and when the first disturbing moment happens and I was affected by it, I knew that the filmmakers were doing something right without being cheap and doing things just for shock effect, the things that happen you know happen because of the true effect that these moments have on all of the characters. There were moments where I thought to myself, "man this movie is messed up." and moments where I thought "this movie is brilliant" I genuinely enjoyed it and jumped in all the right places, some scenes you knew what was about to happen but that didn't ruin the end result. My only problem is the ending I thought that Evan came to the conclusion off-screen when we'd been there for all of his other decisions and knew why he was doing what he was doing, but okay I get it. I thought it funnny that most of his alternate timelines he still had the scuzzy facial hair.

Did the blackouts cease when he got older because traumatic things stopped happening to him? Or because of his Psychatric treatment? Or that was the same way it happened to his father? only in childhood were the bad things that happened too hard on his brain to accept what was happening to him? Good movie and Ashton Kutcher was fine, He didnt blow me away by any means but he got the job done. I noticed he was a producer on the film as well, I wonder if he got the role by helping get the film greenlit? A more talented actor may have given the role more weight but perhaps once Kutcher read the script he knew this could possibly be the springboard he needed to get away from the awful comedies he's made.

 

[AaronChauncey]

I also enjoyed this film. One question - what was the Oasis song that played at the end?

 

[Shawn_KE]

I thought it was a great flick. I liked the idea of his blackouts happening when he traveled back in time. Dark and disturbing and had decent romance without getting sappy. The performances were excellent and the kids actually resebled the.

4 out of 5 stars

 

[Alex Spindler]

I was ruminating about this a bit, and I had a few questions.

First is a chicken and egg question: Can he only go back to where he has blackouts or does he only have blackouts at points that he has gone back? I would assume the former, but there are somethings seen in the early parts of the film that make me doubt myself. For example, in the kitchen, he is seen post-blackout holding a knife. Why is he holding a knife? Because one of his future actions is to obtain an object to cut the rope. This was a mistake because that wasn't the right time period for when he needed the knife, but it begs the question of why his original timeline ended with him holding a knife.


One of his blackout periods had him drawing some disturbing stuff in class. I had assumed that this was drawn by his psycho friend and put on his desk or something. But when he goes back to obtain his 'stigmata proof', it looked like he had drawn that on purpose. Why did he draw that?

 

[Daniel W]

When he first got back, he tried to get up and go do his whole "stigmata" thing. The teacher told him to sit down and finish his assignment, which was to draw something that he wanted to do when he grew up. At that point, he knew that he wanted to be standing over the two other convicts with a knife in his hand. If you look closely at the photo, the guys on the ground look similar to the two prisoners he pays a visit to shortly thereafter.

 

[AaronChauncey]

That makes sense because he claimed that he didn't draw the picture - that someone else did.

 

[Alex Spindler]

That's a great detail. But it has the same Chicken/Egg problem as the knife. In his original timeline, he hadn't wanted to kill anyone, and had no idea what it would mean to be someone's prison bitch. I noticed that both of the scenes that have this problem are ones that he goes back and doesn't significantly change things.

One possible nitpick is that he is less likely to become the Frat Boy leader he is shown to be with two nasty scars on his hands. But it worked for dramatic effect to get his cellmate on his side.

 

[Daniel W]

Yes, it has the same chicken/egg problem as the knife. I have no answer for that problem, which is why I avoided it altogether in my last post . That said, given the inherent error prone nature of a time travel/shifting movie, I think they basically did a pretty good job of keeping the chiken/egg problems to a minimum. At the very least, the film unspooled in such a way that any problems I had were only apparent after the credits began to roll.

 

[Daniel W]

Upon a little further reflection, I've got a theory, though you have to draw some of your own conclusions for it to work. Here goes: In the original timeline, Evan was going to go to jail anyways, we just never got a chance to see it. One of the last things we see in the original timeline is Evan getting the message from Tommy that his sister killed herself and that Tommy would get him. This would likely lead to a confrontation similar to the one that landed Evan in jail when he was a frat boy.

 

[Bill J]

Well, he did allow himself to be owned by a 7-year old.

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

No, no, no. He was punk'd by the 7 year old.

And of course, he was punk'd when the incident was about to take place.

 

[Eve T]

I can think of few things that would forever disturb a persons mind than by that of seeing (and knowing YOU caused) the death of a mother and infant.

I think it was necessary to show why these kids were so f'd up after this event.

They didn't show the mother and baby being killed but how else would we know why these kids were so disturbed over this if they didn't "imply" the event?

I like movies that make you think and maybe even disturb the watcher and remind him/her that life isn't pretty and that things like this happen all the time around the world outside of our cozy little houses and candy coated lives.

This world is full of evil. Having a better understanding of that evil is not a terrible thing.

I stand by my opinion that this was an awesome film.

 

[PaulP]

Indeed! What a surprisingly great film. I can't wait for the DVD. Hopefully there won't just be an alternate ending but a few more scenes of time travel. And I thought Ashton did a good job, which was another surprise. And yet another surprise is how great this was cast. The main characters at 3 different ages really look like their respective counterparts at three different ages. Perfect casting!

 

[Clem]

I am really glad to see so much positive feedback on this. Can't wait to see it!

 

[Joe Schwartz]

No, I think it's because his future self never went back to inhabit his older body -- he only went back to points in his childhood where he thought he could make significant changes.

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.