The ending is obvious... - Another Earth (2011) Discussion

[–] yeahimsteve 12 years ago

As I stated in another thread, the reason why we know that his family lived is because Rhoda on Earth II did not give John Burroughs on Earth II her ticket. The Rhoda we see from Earth II at the end is there because she won the contest on Earth II to visit Earth I, just as her other self on Earth I did. Had she killed his family on Earth II, then she would have given him her ticket in the same manner, which she did not. If people are wondering how both Rhodas won the contests on both Earths even with the synchronicity off, it's because although they weren't synchronized, she was still the same person with the same compelling essay. Plus, this could be considered a minor hole in the story but it's a movie, so we need to keep that in mind. :-)

reply

[–] Tippy_Cup 12 years ago

But she won the essay contest BECAUSE of what had happened to her. If she hadn't killed his family, she wouldn't have won the contest.

------------------------
Vote History
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37466876

reply

[–] steffeeric 12 years ago

That is true....the ending is the only bad thing about this otherwise awesome film.

reply

[–] NotASpeckOfCereal 10 years ago

That is true....the ending is the only bad thing about this otherwise awesome film.

No, it's not a bad ending. Coming to this board after a 2nd watching last night to find that all of the recent threads are about the ending tell me this: there is no pat answer for the ending and it is having the desired effect: polarizing the audience members to discuss the many varied meanings that it could have.

It causes us to wonder about the synchronicity of it all between the two earths, but mostly, this film really has little to do about there being two earths as it does the drama of their lives and the atonement that happens (and that could have happened in many other varied ways or not at all).

I view the Other Earth as simply being a device that causes us to imagine what our lives would be like if we had not make the same mistakes.

This is either no sci-fi at all or perhaps the best of sci-fi. And I like it.

Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

reply

[–] hexrecords 9 years ago

The ending was perfect. I usually am the type that wants to know exactly what happened but in this case it doesn't matter. All that does matter is that she gave him her ticket, so she gave him a chance.. And Rhoda 2 came to Earth. Presumably because the accident didn't happen on Earth 2, or it did but he lived. This movie was amazing. Some of the best and most realistic writing I have ever seen.

reply

[–] AlexEvensen 12 years ago

It was discovered just before she crashed and killed his family. So I don't think the difference at that point is very big. I believe Rhoda on Earth II also crashed, but she might have killed him, not his family. As he is the dead one, she could not had a relationship with him, and things didn't unfold as the did for Rhoda on Earth, and she wanted to be gone, so she took the trip her self.

This makes sense to me as it explains why she won and why she took the trip her self.

-
Dziga Vertov:
I am the machine that reveals the world to you, as only I alone am able to see it

reply

[–] sarastro7 12 years ago

I think you're right. It's the only explanation that preserves symmetry: On Earth II, John was dead and his family alive, so sending John up there would mean reuniting him with his family, who would need him.

But of course, the point of the movie is to say that when we think about our actions, we can activiate an additional layer of free will, and control our destiny more carefully than we have been doing so far. Not a huge nor an original point, and the movie was very slow, but I guess it worked. I'm not rating it higher than a 6 out of 10, though.

reply

[–] kennyli 11 years ago

Hi - interesting discussion on this. Excuse me being slow (!), but can you elaborate on your "of course, the point of the movie" point! Not sure I follow completely why that is what the film is necessarily suggesting, but am interested in the idea - please elaborate!

reply

[–] sarastro7 11 years ago

:-) Well, you know, the movie symbolized two alternative worlds where two different paths were taken. The protagonist wondered whether a different outcome was possible, and when she met the other version of herself from Earth II, it proved that a different path was indeed possible; the other woman had had different experiences and made a different choice; a better one, suggesting a happier life.

So the movie is saying that making better choices is possible. A better choice can come from just a little bit of extra thinking about your actions. To understand (actively, not passively) that you have free will is to do some extra thinking about your actions. Such as paying better attention to the road when you're driving! :-)

reply

[–] Willtur 12 years ago

best scenario in my mind

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Don't you think that its very strange that that the honor went to a convicted felon who killed two people while driving drunk? Is that plausible? Have you considered that Earth 2 is anothing more than a metaphor in Rhoda's journey towards redemption. There are too many odd coincidenses, such as Earth 2 being discovered on the night of the accident. I believe the possibilty that Earth 2 is meant as a metaphor is strongly suggested.

reply

[–] RodneyVervegard 12 years ago

I think it would have been impossible if the mission had been a publicly funded NASA type operation. However, I got the impression that this mission was funded by a Richard Branson type guy. He already had all the necessary specialists and he threw the essay contest out as a publicity stunt. Since HE got to be the final judge he could have chosen anybody. I suspect he wanted to preserve his maverick image and chose someone 'outside the box'. The 'you'll either be in prison or be a millionaire' explanation works for me.

Of course, I think everything that happens after the wreck occurs in her head as a wishful thinking way of dealing with her own guilt.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Another thing about Rhoda, while she was accepted to MIT, she really only had a high school education. This makes the choice of her even more unbelievable.

Not to rehash this entire arguemnt, but I like the metaphorical interpretation of Earth 2, and I believe there is ample evidence to support it. That's the way I saw the film on my first viewing, and its the wayt I will always see the film. But, ultimately, its for the individual viewer to decide. If someone takes the entire thing literally, then that's how they will see the film. In this sense, there is no right or wrong interpretation.

As far as the NASA (government) versus private sector funding of space exploration, I don't think there is a person wealthy enough on this planet to to even begin to be able to fund such an operation. Our space program is a result of decades of government funded research and requires 100s of the world's most brilliant engineers to trouble shoot every little problem. The lunar landings, now 40 years old, represented the apex of human space exploration. But, without massive government funding which began in WW2 and accelerated greatly during the Cold War, there never would have been a moon shot. The lunar landings were really as much a result of the Cold War as anything. This is the reason our space program is at a stand still today (in terms of manned space travel), the research can no longer be funded at war time levels.

For me, this is another reason to doubt the literal interpretation.

reply

[–] RodneyVervegard 12 years ago

I think there are people who are rich enough (or at least good at raising money) to afford one mission. I don't think they will until they can find a way to make it profitable.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

That's a good point. I live in New Mexico, where Richard Branson, with quite a bit of help from our corrupt former governor, built the "Spaceport". There was a lot of excitement about this before the financial meltdown of 2008. Now, pretty much nothing is happening down there, and its not even much of a tourist attraction.

But, the idea was to sell tickets on a Space Shuttle mission to the uber rich, such that it would be profitable. The shuttle was to land at the Space Port in southern New Mexico. This just wasn't a successful business model, and nothing panned out. So now, its a huge write off for Branson, and a foolish waste of New Mexican tax payers. This is the sort of stunt Bill Richardson pulled when he was running for President.

But your point is probably correct, with our federal debt and so many things like entitlement pay-outs being high priorites, if there is to be manned space exploration in the future, it will have to be funded by the private sector, with tax incentives from the government. And for this to happen, it will need to be profitable. That's the catch, how can it be made profitable?

Who's High Pitch?

reply

[–] hmn4858 12 years ago

Ever heard of elon musk?

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Yes, I had heard of him, but I just googled, and learned quite a bit more, thanks. The Space X is really promising. It certainly is well ahead of anything Branson has done, and an important first step.

I see that Space X recieved a 1.7 billion dollar NASA grant. It seems like this is probably the model for commercial space flight, especially since NASA's budget has been cut so deeply. No doubt, the private sector can get things done more efficiently. The private sector can also attract the best and brightest minds.

There are potential problems with the government/private sector joint ventures in areas like this. Are Space X's proprietary technologies owed to the government? There are issues of imminent domain. Sadly, the biggest issue is the fact that the US will be going through an unprecidented era of fiscal cutbacks and belt tightening in the decades to come. NASA will likely see further budget cuts. I have to chuckle when politicians like Obama and others talk about a manned mission to Mars. There is just no way in h*ll that's going to happen in anybody's lifetime. Something like that would take at least a decade of heavily (government) funded research as well as a massive budget for NASA. This administration, whether right of wrong, has made issues of social and economic equality its highest priorites. There is a price to be paid for this.

But, people like Elon Musk with his vision, may be able to make remarkable things happen. So there is hope.

Who's High Pitch?

reply

[–] ArthurDental 10 years ago

So sad people don't get it and get taken in by charismatic executives. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson explained many times, private enterprise wades in only when risks are quantified so that profits can be made.

Original scientific revolutions (including moon landings etc) are completely out of reach (or desire) of profit-seeking individuals. Most major discoveries in the astrophysics realm have no immediate use and are usually quite unexpected. Their profitably applications often aren't found till years or decades later. Basic science research simply is not done for anything but curiosity. Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg... even they had no idea where their ideas would take them.

reply

[–] jingizu_z 12 years ago

YOu are wrong you know. Already SpaceX sent a resupply rocket up to the orbiting Space Station, and it will continue.

Private / corporation funding is the future of space travel and there are definintely individuals and corporations rich enough to fund it. It is because of constant government funding cuts that NASA has been downscaling so much lately.

I agree that it wouldn't have been possible years and decades ago, but today it is. I actually checked your date of posting before commenting, but you should know in 2013 about SpaceX, etc.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

What exactly am I wrong about? I discuss SpaceX in my post. I also point out that SpaceX got a very large grant from NASA. SpaceX is a step in the right direction, and you are right, it would not have been possible during the Cold War. This, because the US Government would never have shared technologies with the private sector.

The private sector very likely is the future of manned space travel, but if this is the case, then humans won't be going very far from Earth in a very long time if ever. In the case of SpaceX, resupplying the Space Station is sort of small beans. Its sort of like "been there done that". You think SpaceX will make a mission to Mars within our lifetimes? That's laughable.

The fact is that that the Lunar Landings of the late-60s, early-70s were only possible after decades of massive, Cold War era, government funding of the required research. In fact, NASA's Space Program really "piggy backs" off the large-scale government funded research of the Second World War. So, actually what WAS possible decades ago, is NOT possible today.

You could combine the resources of the ten or twenty wealthiest people/corporations on the planet, and you wouldn't even begin to approach the funding necessary for a manned mission to Mars. The engineering costs alone would be prohibitive.

The Manhattan Project is an excellent example. It was only through the war-time budget of the world's emerging super power that such a project could have been realized. 1000s of the nation's elite engineers, and some of the greatest scientific minds of modern times were needed in this endeavor, and the US government essentially conscripted them.

How much would this cost the private sector today? We are talking trillions.

"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"

reply

[–] jingizu_z 12 years ago

I agree with you of course that WWII and the Cold War, did encourage not only space travel, but also a lot of technology being pushed forward. Hell, if it wasn't for WWII we wouldn't be here sitting and typing to each from across the globe on the internet.

Yet, things are changing. You fail to realise that space travel can also become profitable, such as mining asteroids for example. Have you also read about the Mars One project?

SpaceX received assistance and help from NASA, not "funding". They have CONTRACTS with NASA, i.e. they provide a service and NASA pays for it. They also have contracts with several other companies. To quote:

"NASA has also awarded SpaceX a contract to develop and demonstrate a human-rated Dragon as part of its Commercial Crew Development program to transport crew to the ISS. SpaceX is planning its first crewed Dragon/Falcon 9 flight in 2015, when it expects to have a fully certified, human-rated launch escape system incorporated into the spacecraft.

Besides NASA contracts, SpaceX has signed contracts with private sector companies, non-American government agencies and the American military for its launch services. It has already launched, for a paying customer, a low earth orbiting satellite with its Falcon 1 booster in 2009. The company plans to launch its first commercial geostationary satellite in 2013 from a Falcon 9."

This is the beginning of commercial space flights and of course its still in its infancy. Governments cannot support these costly endeavours anymore, so private commercial companies are taking over. Not paying for it all themselves of course, but getting funding from many different governments and companies.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but there are corporations out there that have massive budgets. Corporations are taking over the world, most presidents and politicians are in their pockets, in case you haven't noticed.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

To your last point, I have noticed.

This is an excellent discussion, btw.

As far as grants and funding, I consider them to be the same thing.

You do make some good arguments. Corporations may be taking over the World in some ways. I would love to see the human race get to the point where manned space travel could become a priority. I just think we have a long way to go. We have to solve a whole lot of other problems first. Corporations can take the lead in the area of space travel, but I don't think they can succeed with some big time government help.

When I see that over 60% of the massive US fiscal annual budget goes to paying entitlements, I get really discouraged. Our federal government has promised way more than it can deliver along these lines. When I see that a large % of Obama's 2009 stimulus went to bailing out local jurisdictions (who can no longer pay out their promised entitlements), I get a bit angry. I don't want to make this a political thing, but I would much rather have seen that money go towards scientific research and educational grants to encourage young people to become engineers, physicists, etc.

From an apolitical perspective, I think the US government needs to start investing in its future. Increasing the NASA budget, while slashing massive waste in the Pentagon budget would be a good start.

"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"

reply

[–] jingizu_z 12 years ago

Yup, I also enjoy this discussion! :)

I am not from the US, but it does sadden me when I read in the papers the amounts that are being spent on the military and on social grants and bail-outs, while the space exploration budget is annually being slashed. We've always looked to NASA to lead the way, but it seems they are losing their way now due to funding.

I agree that now in its initial stages, corporations still need the backing of governments to get into space travel, but as soon as it becomes profitable, things may change. If there is enough profit to be had, it will become a priority. Unfortunate but true.

It irks me when people comment on space travel articles that the money should rather go to feeding the poor or somesuch. Don't they realise that space exploration and scientific enquiry can in the long run eradicate such problems?

reply

[–] roryeng 12 years ago

That is a false conclusion. If Rhoda2 had not had an accident, it was still possible for her to win. All it means is she won with a different essay.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LogicalImplication

she had killed his family -> she wrote the winning essay
1 -> 1 = true

she had not killed his family -> she wrote the winning essay
0 -> 1 = true

reply

[–] I_Pinxit 11 years ago

That is a false conclusion. If Rhoda2 had not had an accident, it was still possible for her to win. All it means is she won with a different essay.

Exactly, and I think this is the version of events that is by far the most elegant and best fits the story. It's also plausible, because Rhoda 2 would be an MIT graduate in Astronomy, which could be very useful in writing a winning essay.

There's a clue that this is the intended interpretation, in that Rhoda 2 is smartly dressed and is shocked to see her counterpart looking so rough. This indicates that she hasn't been through all the grief that Rhoda 1 has experienced. It's a good ending to the story because now Rhoda 1 can see, as opposed to merely imagine, what might have been - and so can John Burroughs.

reply

[–] crabax 12 years ago

How do you know what Earth II Rhoda would have experienced? What she would've been good at? Remember, this was an MIT-accepted student, so she could've written an equally compelling letter about why a young scientist should go...

reply

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 12 years ago

Because the symmetry is off, she decides to go anyway regardless of whether the family is alive or not. That's all I could come up with.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply

[–] bluerisk 11 years ago

She could have won it through since then she would have become a brilliant scientist.

Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

reply

[–] bsharporflat 11 years ago

But she won the essay contest BECAUSE of what had happened to her. If she hadn't killed his family, she wouldn't have won the contest.

We are not shown what she wrote to win the essay and that is deliberate. If we take the "real" interpretation of the movie then the essay had nothing to do with the accident. On Earth 2 she didn't have an accident, she won the essay contest and travlled to Earth 1. Notice how stylish she looks compared to the scruffy girl on Earth 1 who has spent 4 years in prison.

The metaphoric, wish-fulfillment interpretation also makes sense. Earth 2 could simply be her mental invention. A way of changing things so the man could get his family back and she didn't gave to go to prison, etc..

But the way the story is structured, it leans a bit more toward the "Earth 2 is real" interpretation. This is because we first hear about Earth 2 before the accident. If Earth 2 was purely a mental construct we might expect the writers to cause it appear after the accident. Perhaps as part of her suicidal dying dream.

reply

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

If the synchronicity was broken before the accident, maybe Rhoda2 killed John2 along with his entire family so there was no one to give the ticket to. Rhoda2 was motivated to come to Earth1 to tell her that Rhoda1 was actually in better emotional shape than Rhoda2 and to chill out. Frankly I didn't see Rhoda2 as looking any more together than Rhoda1 considering that if you are going to visit another planet you might want to look emotionally together (combed hair, new clothes, makeup, etc.)
Your theory on both Rhoda's winning the contest defies the Occam Razor principle. The simplest solution is that someone else win the contest on Earth2.

Sequel:

Another Sex Earth Too

Rhoda1 and Rhoda2 and have the most bizarre lesbian incestuous sex ever.

As you might have guessed I really disliked this movie except for the fact that I live within short distance from where it was filmed (New Haven, CT) and find picking out locations sorta fun.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

reply

[–] kyotousa 12 years ago

just wondering what is Burrough gonna do in Earth 2? Burrough#2 would still be alive right. What is he gonna do there?

reply

[–] al_moozaayaaf 12 years ago

maby John Burrough it to her in that world

reply

[–] speling_errer 9 years ago

It could be his return ticket, hence he wants to stay there, his family may be alive.

reply

[–] swaroberts 12 years ago

I'm not sure that the ending is obvious.

No way could Rhoda II have had exactly the same car accident as Rhoda I.

When she crashes the car (on Earth I) it is night-time - she looks up and sees Earth II lit up by sunlight (it wouldn't have been visible otherwise) - this means that on the Earth II assuming that it is nighttime where her doppleganger is then the doppleganger would not be able to see Earth I and so would not have had the same car crash because she would probably have been looking at the road, not the skies.

This could leave an interesting ending - in that Rhoda I is distracted and drunk and has killed the mom and child but Rhoda II is only drunk, maybe still crashes but kills John while the mom and child survive.
This ending would allow for the fact that Rhoda II gets her interplanetary ticket, as she would still have gone to jail but it would also allow for a "happy" ending as John gets to Earth II and finds his doppleganger wife and children survived while he died.

Just a thought.

reply

[–] TxMike 12 years ago

Interesting thoughts, but I'm not sure the writers were smart enough to have figured it out that way.

TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

reply

[–] ssimpson-10 12 years ago

^^This^^

reply

[–] cargolot 11 years ago

Or they didn't care. Or why not; the sun might be illuminating both earths, even it's dark where the girl is, the sun can illuminate another part of earth 1 visible from earth 2.

Spain

reply

[–] uaqpau 12 years ago

I agree. And that actually makes for a happy ending. In Earth2 Rhoda also crashed but killed John instead of the wife and son, so she went to jail and wrote that same essay to win the ticket. At the end John from Earth1 travels to Earth2 and the family is reunited. Rhoda2 travels to Earth1 because there was no John to give the ticket to.

reply

[–] justinmacri2032 12 years ago

I shocked and said "that's it" I never want to see this film again I thought it would be somthing cool like those other films

Bond James Bond

reply

[–] thomasyeung 12 years ago

Rhoda II was likely a gifted astrophysicist, so she could have gotten on the journey purely as part of the expedition itself, with no gimmicky contest essay necessary.

*****

"Mark Wahlberg is wearing a hat."

reply

[–] tokratez 12 years ago

John arrive earth 2 to find his family alive, and give his "return to earth 1" ticket to Rhoda 2. Atleast thats what both me and my wife instantly thought when we saw it yesterday. Good movie btw.

reply

[–] ssimpson-10 12 years ago

Sorry, but there's no way there was a return ticket. Nothing we have (or therefore Earth 2 could have) would have enough fuel for 2 liftoffs from Earth. The space shuttle couldn't take off after landing, it needed that huge booster that was bigger than the ship itself! That was why John was originally so upset at her leaving, he knew she'd never be back.

reply

[–] leah_zero 12 years ago

Uh...they could just send back the Earth 1 people on an Earth 2 rocket. Derp.

reply

[–] ssimpson-10 12 years ago

Why would they give away a $10 million ticket when they have their own contest and people who want to go?

reply

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

John1 would have found John2 alive and kickin on Earth2 and blown John1's head off with an Earth2 shotgun if John1 made any advance toward John2's wife or kids. I would find John1 a threat if I was John2. This is a major credibility destroying facet of the movie. Of what possible good is it to John1 to go to Earth2 if John2 is in the picture?! That would have just depressed him even more. Stupid movie. Stupid fan-boys.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

reply

[–] bowery_boy 12 years ago

This^^^^

It was the first thing I said to my partner when the movie concluded.

I was all, "What's the point of going to Earth2 if his other self is going to be there with his family as well?"

This could have been a good movie if they approached it as a straight forward Bergman-esque drama exploring themes of love, loss, redemption, and forgiveness.

The sci-fi aspect, and I use that term loosely, was what killed it for me.

reply

[–] billycan 12 years ago

John1 goes to Earth2 to see if the doppelganger family is alive. He is still grieving for his lost family. Just seeing and interacting with the doppelgangers might be enough for him to move on. Who says he would necessarily attempt to come between John2 and his family?

Stupid!!

I have a much bigger problem with the synchronicity/broken synchonicity aspect of the film. I can live with a multiverse concept but not 2 identical planets with identical people in the same universe. But hey, that's just the way the writers decided to go. It's no biggie.

reply

[–] bowery_boy 12 years ago

No. It's not stupid.

That is your interpretation of the end of the film.

The movie purposely has an open ending so each one of us can come up with our own conclusions.

Your conclusion differs from mine. That is all. It doesn't make your conclusion better or worse than mine.

reply

[–] billycan 12 years ago

I stand by my statement but maybe I should have said ridiculous instead of stupid. Deciding a movie is good or bad based on the conclusion that you yourself have chosen rather than what is IN the actual movie is ridiculous.

reply

[–] KennethJoel 12 years ago

the first thing I noticed was that Rhoda2 looked very seccessful nice hair well dressed and that made me think she had taken a different path the Rhonda1. JMO

"I will have to read a couple of blogs before I can form my opinion on that"

reply

[–] bowery_boy 12 years ago

Well, I never said I thought the movie was bad. I said I didn't like it.

Also, movies are personal veiwing experiences prone to arbitrary conclusions from the viewer.

I decided I didn't like the movie based on the conclusions I myself have chosen which in turn was based on what was IN the actual movie - not on what I thought would happen next. To say that is ridiculous is to say that a movie viewing experience itself is ridiculous.

The film had a purposely open ended ambiguous ending so that we, the viewer, are left up to our own interpretations as to what happens next.

For me, that's what makes a movie viewing experience enjoyable even if I didn't like the overall movie itself.

Personally, I thought there was no proof that John1's family was still alive or if John2 was still alive. And if John2 and family was still alive what was John1 going to do? You and I have different opinions on what would happen next and that's ok

However, to dimiss my movie viewing experience and the conclusions therein as ridiculous is pompous at best and arrogant at worst.

reply

[–] lua-and-the-flowers 12 years ago

I loved the end because it let us all think and interpretate what happened the way we want. When I first watched it i thought that nothing had changed. I thought that when John got to Earth 2 he saw that his family had died there as well and Rhoda 2 came to Earth 1 because of the same things. I think Earth 2 was just some kind of peculiar mistake of the Universe that kind of created this "mirror". I know it sound sad but it is my opinion. And that's the good thing about this film, we will never know. So, of course the end was not obvious.

reply

[–] El_Guapo_Caballo 12 years ago

<<
This could have been a good movie if they approached it as a straight forward Bergman-esque drama exploring themes of love, loss, redemption, and forgiveness. >>

Gay.

reply

[–] ceefoo 12 years ago

John arrive earth 2 to find his family alive, and give his "return to earth 1" ticket to Rhoda 2. Atleast thats what both me and my wife instantly thought when we saw it yesterday. Good movie btw. by tokratez

Interesting theory but this wouldn't have been possible in only 4 Months.
The time shown when Rhoda sees her mirror-self.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

reply

[–] miao84 12 years ago

Considering the syncronicity was broken, it is possible that Rhoda2 killed John2 in the accident instead of his family, unlike on Earth1. That's why she wins the essay contest on Earth2 as well. I think that wraps the whole story up quite nicely.

reply

[–] Raylathotep 12 years ago

^this^ answers everything. miao84 hit the nail on the head and the "proof", or support or whatever, is right in the beginning of the film.

The scene with the car wreck shows BOTH Rhodas. It also shows two different outcomes to the crash(es). This is in the first few minutes of the film, so it's easy to double-check. Watch it carefully:

Right after the collision, you see her get out of her car and approach the other wreck- she is wearing a SCARF, looks into the car and sees the family dead and the man in the driver's seat bleeding. She looks up, AND THEN.... You see her again by her car, NOW without a scarf, and she walks over again. THEN she's standing over the covered corpse of a man laying face down on the sidewalk.

The accident happened on both Earths. In one, the family died, in the other, the father. Both Rhodas go to prison for 4 years, write the essay and win.

...On the point about "a return trip".... well, on a near duplicate Earth I'm sure they'd have the means. And part of the point in exploration is, well, to return and report the findings, so I'm sure there was some plan to return the travelers eventually. I mean, it's not like they're going there to colonize the place.

---------------------------------------------------
Can YOU survive?
http://chooseyourstory.com/Story/Escape_from_the_Dead.aspx

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Guj 12 years ago

Raylathotep, you're going far to deep into this man, it was a continuity error so calm down.

hamrick_dl984, EVICTED from the car? loool, i think you mean ejected! you made it sound like the little boy hadnt been paying his car payment bills and the landlord kicked him out of his car accommodation!! pmsl

the kid / kids seat was strapped in with a seatbelt anyway, so its pretty unlikely that he would have been thrown outa the windscreen to begin with. Plus, if this movie gives you 'nose bleeds' try not to watch and figure out LOST.

You die in the end!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Guj 12 years ago

As in Chris Hamrick aka Confederate Currency, an American ECW professional wrestler? The surname's origins of which come from my neighbouring country Ireland. so Im pretty sure he/she's not German, but if they are then I do apologise.

You die in the end!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Guj 12 years ago

Clever saying Celtic after I just wrote Ireland, nice touch. Plus you said suffix when I think you meant abbreviation, we'll come to suffix's later on...

Don't mean to drag this out but it is a very interesting conversation. Its a slow day at work so I though I would do so some research (i'm a market researcher, being inquisitive is in my nature).

Hamrick is derived from the German Hammerich. The Hammerich's brought the name along with them when they conquered England, Wales and Ireland in 1066. A living German using a surname spelt Hamrick is not only uncommon, its insulting. German's have never used a hard 'K' at the suffix when spelling a word (ie; never used 'ick' at the end of a word).
There is an -IK pronunciation variant in South Germany (ie König becomes Könik) but it is never spelt ending with the letter K or ICK, hence why you see ICH suffix spellings in many words like Munich, Heimlich, Reich etc. The first Hamrick to settle in North American was Patrick Hamrick in the 18th Century from the North East of Ireland, now here's where it gets interesting...

German's call Germany 'Deutschland' and use the country code of DE (which you obviously know), but it is only referred to as DL by one place, WMO. The World Meteorological Organization(!) specialise in weather and climate sciences; so unless Hamrick_dl984 is a German meteorologist who is very, VERY fond of his work, I think maybe no. A German citizen using DL for Deutschland is very uncommon, its the equivalent of an Englishman calling England 'EL', which I can assure you will pretty much never happen.

In the North East of Ireland, 'DL' could refer to DubLin, which I doubt.
A district in Northern Ireland is controversially called Derry/Londonderry - could be that, but again I doubt it.
But get ready, I like this one.. there is a popular industrial town called Drogheda in Louth, and its telephone area code is 984!
The best part is, I didn't even have to look this one up, as I do business with a guy called Ed Hamrick in Drogheda with the primary telephone number of 984.

Now I'm not saying this IMDB user has to be from Drogheda with a telephone number of 984 (they could just be from Delaware born in 1984), and I'm not saying their name has anything to do with an American wrestler whose ancestors emigrated from Ireland. However, as I didn't ridicule Hamrick from using one correctly spelt, but mistakenly chosen word (as you will find I did apologise), I think you may just have accused and insulated a native English speaker of not being able to speak or understand English properly.

I for one would love to hear the thoughts of Hamrick_dl984, if we havn't scared him/her away already, because I am honestly interested!

You die in the end!

reply

[–] chouse1020 12 years ago

Clever saying Celtic after I just wrote Ireland, nice touch

Oh so you're the only person with Mick blood on the entire site now?

Wow!

I happened to know the origins of that name off the top of my head - not which County it's from but that it's a name from both places - and the SUFFIX of the name which includes the two letters and the numbers did seem to indicate Germanic origins, which is why I didn't mention the Celtic roots as well in my first post here. Wow, thinking, what a concept.

I for one would love to hear the thoughts of XXXXX, if we havn't scared him/her away already, because I am honestly interested!

Too late, you did already.

I got a PM from that poster so I removed those posts - it was a typo after all, but you still are trolling and/or being a douche.

reply

[–] Heavengrey 12 years ago

If you don't mind, I'm going to grab the wheel and try to pull this puppy back on topic.

The only thing we know for sure at the end is that Rhoda(E1) will find out from Rhoda(E2) if the same thing happened on E2. I think that is why she had a look of dread on her face when she saw Rhoda(E2).

reply

[–] garettap-547-827815 12 years ago

I think Raylathotep is onto something here.

Aside from the scarf disappearing, in some car crash frames Rhoda has blood dripping out of her nose and in other frames she has blood dripping down her chin.

I don't think the crew would be so lazy and oblivious to make multiple continuity errors in a drama about mirroring worlds.

I bet there's a lot more of these little "lapses in continuity" throughout the rest of the film that nobody has picked up on. I'm too lazy to go back and check myself.

reply

[–] lebellue 9 years ago

Raylathotep

What an astute observation! I went back and watched the accident scene...You're right! It is very subtle and I never would have noticed the white scarf change if you hadn't mentioned it.

garettap
I also saw that the blood on her nose and chin seemed to change as well.

It's possible that it was a wardrobe and makeup error but I doubt it! Especially with the scarf!

It does fit in with the Earth1/Earth2 explanation that I had already decided upon for the movie.

reply

[–] zkpip 12 years ago

I agree with you.

reply

[–] seattlejump 12 years ago

I just watched this movie last night and I think you're right khurambashir, "They might be alive."

It's clear the filmmakers didn't want it wrapped up in a neat little ending. My impression was the sci-fi aspect was only a unique way to tell a story of redemption.

The film is much more a story about Rhoda's attempt to find forgiveness (both from John and herself) and redemption for the consequences of her poor decision, as well as John's attempt to find hope in a life deeply affected by his loss.

Rhoda believes she will find her forgiveness/redemption somehow in knocking on John's door and apologizing face-to-face, but life isn't that simple or easy. She believes she will find it if she 'works it off' by cleaning his place and refuse to take any financial gain from it. She believes she will find it in making him feel cared about and loved. But her forgiveness and redemption only comes when she is honest about who she is, suffers the loss of relationship with someone she has deep feelings for, AND ultimately makes the personal sacrifice only out of love and concern for another, not for herself.

John has no hope following his loss. He reluctantly accepts some practical help, then allows himself to be affected by Rhoda's caring ways and his heart finds the ability to love again. In the end it is 'hope' that re-enters his life. It's really secondary whether the sci-fi plot has or has not allowed for his family to survive (and for all the discussion about plot holes, if you wanted to focus on anything it could be that there is communication established with Earth2 and you could assume there would be knowledge available and provided about each of the counterparts that were on the travel mission -- thus John could have or would have known if his counterpart, wife and kids were alive.)

But the story is ultimately about the choices, mistakes and regrets we all have in life. It's how we are able to find a way to forgive ourselves and a path towards redemption or hope.

I do like how the sci-fi aspect uses the 'mirror' terminology, as if to relate it to how we can sometimes walk through life and see ourselves in mirrors or other reflective surfaces but not see who we really are until something jars our reality in some way....then what we see in the mirror is often quite different and life doesn't just keep going the same way.

reply

[–] El_Guapo_Caballo 12 years ago

<< then allows himself to be affected by Rhoda's caring ways >> and amazing hotness, wich without none of this would have worked out, lets say, for example, that Rhonda would have been portrayed by Arnold's mexicana maid instead of by impossibly beautiful Brit Marling. John's heart would most definetely have skipped the precious ability to love again.

reply

[–] myownopinion 12 years ago

At first, the ending seemed random and disappointing: why does Rhoda meet herself? After thinking it over, I actually think it's brilliant. For what it's worth, here's my take.

Earth II is not an identical world, it's a mirror image. This is supported by the conversation of the SETI director with "herself." - They weren't saying the same sentences, they were giving complementary remarks, completing each other's thoughts.

On Earth II, Rhoda desperately wants to visit Earth I, enters and wins the contest. However, John's family is not dead, she does not have the same relationship with him and does not give him the ticket on Space Ventures.

Instead Rhoda II comes to Earth I and meets Rhoda I. The symmetry is broken. Had there been exact symmetry, John II would have landed on Earth I and met Rhoda I.

From this, I conclude that John I is reunited with his family on Earth II. Presumably, John II was killed in the car accident so there is a joyful reunion of family II with John I on Earth II.

This is supported by the fact that, when Rhoda II arrives on Earth I, she is dressed as a cleaning woman, implying that her promising MIT prospects were thwarted, as on Earth I, and she had been to prison and was working as a cleaning woman on Earth II.

QED

PS, this leaves room for a sequel: the continuing life of Rhoda I and II (exact copies, don't forget) on Earth I.

reply

[–] johnny-rose 12 years ago

I believe that since the earths mirrored each other, everything happening was opposide, which means in the Earth 2 John died and the rest of the family survived. That would explain why Rhoda2 won the contest, she two was a felon but she experienced the guilt and facing her "victims" differently, since a family losing their husband and father may suffer but it's a different pain. Rhoda 2 would also not have met him so she decided to see what happened in Earth1. My guess is that Rhoda2 figured out the same thing that Rhoda1 did. I think she figured out that in the other Earh John would have survived, and knowing herself she would also know Rhoda1, and she would know that Rhoda1 gave John the opportunity to go to Earth2 to meet his family. She knew she was going to meet another version of herself.

All in all, it's absolutely a fascinating film, and a fascinating ending.

reply