I wonder what happens now. If two people love each other before their next lives begin, are they going to be 'destined' to meet each other and fall in love once they've 'moved forward'? Or does the universe randomly assign souls to new bodies again? Looks like Daniel and Julia will meet again in the next life...and THAT IS WHY WE NEED A SEQUEL.
shareI think you missed the point. They're not getting new lives or new bodies. They're done with Earth and reincarnation and all that. Moving forward means moving on to the next level of existence (whatever that is) but they remain themselves (as have all the residents of Judgment City) and they can stay together.
Of course, it's going to be pretty awkward when Julia's husband dies.
itchyfriend9: "They're done with... reincarnation... they remain themselvess...".
I don't quite understand how you're concluding those things. We only know that they are, in some sense, advancing.
For youngish, healthy types like they were it would be good to just stay in Judgement City, just for the food.
But I think the story was cheating a little by letting people believe they were staying together. He was allowed to advance, that's logically supported, but individuals on the trams staying together is in no way suggested by the story.
____________________
I'm concluding these things based on a combination of what it says in the movie, what it means to "move on" in Buddhist philosophy (which is what this whole movie is based upon), and just plain common sense. They're essentially achieving Nirvana. Why WOULDN'T they be able to stay together? They're not slaves, they have free will. It'd be like going to Heaven and being told, no, sorry, you have to go live in separate regions of Heaven.
The whole point of the movie is that they're trying to break the circle of reincarnation. Yeah, if they both went back to Earth, they'd become different people, with no memory of their relationship. But moving on means this doesn't happen, that they retain their memories and now get to build up their brain power. Did you not understand the movie?
And being youngish and healthy is completely irrelevant. They're dead! They don't actually need food. In the afterlife, everyone is healthy.
itchyfriend9 "And being youngish and healthy is completely irrelevant. They're dead! They don't actually need food. In the afterlife, everyone is healthy."
This would mean one needs to selectively accept or modify the actual on-screen realities of Judgement City. There were many old people in not such good shape. Do they stay that way are? Kids would get the best deal if so; they get a free-pass and they're young and beautiful.
They don't need food, so forget about the great food at JC. Do they need sex? Do they get new bodies? If they have free will, can they cheat on each other? Do they forget their pasts?
It seems like you're automatically applying developments that are happy-ending-like but not really consistent, as in fairy tales--"they live happily ever after", which only works dramatically if you don't think about it too much.
____________________
I think you're over-thinking it now. It's a comedy! We're meant to assume a happy ending unless given a reason not to, and we haven't been given a reason not to. None of your questions need an answer for the movie to work.
Besides, you might as well ask these questions about any movie that features the afterlife. And there are a lot of them.
Where in the film does it say that "moving on" means you don't get reincarnated? It sounded like to me that souls were on a journey of "existence levels." You get smarter and smarter with each level you pass. Earth is just one stop on what could be a multitude of universes that people go through. For Earth, the test was one of "courage." Maybe the next level up, it's "morality," or whatever.
But I didn't think that by "passing" Earth, these souls were done. After all, they only use "3% of their brain." It feels like they still have a ways to go. And if that's the case, I wonder if there would be some other cosmic tie that would connect Julia and Daniel together on the rest of their journey.
It doesn't explicitly say that, but by definition "reincarnation" means going back to Earth and living a new life in a new body. And it definitely doesn't say anything about "existence levels or a "multitude of universes." What the movie does say is that moving on means becoming part of the machinery of the universe. The whole point of reincarnation is to get over your fears, because the universe doesn't want a "bad" part to get through; once you've done that, you don't have to go back to Earth (i.e. be reincarnated). Courage is the only "test." Read up on Buddhist philosophy and it will make more sense to you.
The movie never says how their brains get bigger when they move forward, but obviously being reincarnated again wouldn't make any sense. If the whole idea is to get smarter, how would taking away their memories and identities help? That's the exact opposite of how to go about it.
If Albert Brooks did indeed mean to model this movie 100% on Buddhism, then what you say is fair enough.
But as a person who came into this movie without any religious biases, I can't say I saw anything in this story that suggested Brooks was explicitly promoting one particular faith. He borrowed a lot from Buddhism, yes, but he also seemed to put his own spin on a lot of things. What I took from it is that Brooks might be implying that there's some sort of progression in our spiritual journey.
Why do I think this? Because of the way Bob Diamond talks about brains (from the quotes page):
"I use 48% of my brain. Do you want to know how much you use?" "47%?" "3%."
"AS YOU GET SMARTER, you begin to manipulate your senses. This tastes much different to me than it is to you."
"BEING FROM EARTH, as you are, and using as little of your brain as you do, your life has pretty much been devoted to dealing with fear."
"Little brains -- that's what we call you behind your backs."
All of this suggests to me that souls get smarter as they go on this spiritual journey, and that it doesn't necessarily just end with Earth. Even the lawyers in Judgement City haven't gotten to the point where they're making "full use" of their brains.
Taking away memories is part of the test, I believe. If we all remembered exactly how stupid we were, then that makes things too easy, don't you think? Maybe the universe wants to see what we make of implicit memory.
Btw, by "reincarnation," I'm simply going by the Webster meaning -- souls get reassigned to new bodies. Sounds like you're going by some other more narrow definition about going back to earth. That's not what I meant.
You are, of course, entitled to whatever you think about this movie. Just hope you realize that this film -- as with most attempts at the meaning of life -- is open to interpretation.
Yes, there is a spiritual journey (or a mental journey, or whatever), and yes, they are constantly in the process of getting smarter and learning to use more of their brain. But you're extrapolating stuff that just isn't there. There is zero evidence that they get new bodies when they move on, nor is there any reason why they would. I don't think the movie ever even uses the word "reincarnation," so obviously it's not a word they feel is important enough to keep using once they've died and gone to Judgment City. They just say they're sent back to Earth until they get it right. Well, now they've gotten it right, meaning no more reincarnation.
I mean, are you saying Bob Diamond is going to be reincarnated, and then lose all of his memories and start from scratch so he can eventually use 50% of his brain, and so on, and so on? That makes no sense.
It's open to interpretation, but it's not open to mentally creating your own back story and sequel out of whole cloth, which is what you're doing.
No, I'm not saying that Bob's going to be reincarnated. He's an employee of the universe. For all I know, he stays in Judgment City and continues using his 48% forever. Who knows. Just because your memories might be erased doesn't mean you are "starting all over."
Look, I'm not saying that my interpretation is right. I just think it doesn't hurt to use a little imagination and open-mindedness about this film. And I'm certainly not extrapolating any more than you are about Nirvana and all that. Just as there's no evidence that people get new bodies after moving on, there's no evidence that they stay together after passing Earth.
You could be right, I'll grant you that. But so could I...and I'm not interested in persuading you on something that probably only Albert Brooks could answer. Just not the type of person who's so married to my own idea to the point of telling people that they MUST be wrong.