I have a problem with the ending - Predestination (2015) Discussion

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

In essence the Fizzle bomber was the guy that ruined his (Jane's) life, previously. Jane couldnt or wouldnt kill him at the park, but now he does it.

John was preoccupied with the saying, "if I put the man who ruined your life in front of you, would you kill him?"

However, the Bomber didnt seem to realise that John was gonna shoot him.

The predestination is set in motion, the moment he shots the bomber

http://my-impressionz.tk

reply

[–] tagheuer25 10 years ago

I think you missed the whole point of this. I understand the reason why he had to shoot him.

"The predestination is set in motion, the moment he shots the bomber"

This is what I don't understand. why? He shot the bomber. But now he knows he would become the bomber if he kept on using the time machine. So, being adamant that he would never become the bomber, you would think that he would have never used the time machine again (because he knew what would happened if he did). It seems like you just take it face value that just because the bomber said the motion of predestination will be set if he shot him, you just agreed with it without asking why? and it's a big why for me. I just don't see it setting anything other than the fact that he stopped the bomber from committing more crimes. Just like I don't see how not killing him would stop him from becoming the bomber. Again, he has an information that he didn't have before entering the laundry mat.

reply

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

The fact that John shoots and kills the Bomber shows that he s already unhinged.

Shooting the bomber doesnt stop the bomber, the only "sane" person was the bomber, since he is the only one that has seen the future.

having two bombers side by side, activates another paradox: bootstrap.

Having the Bomber guiding John means they can evade the Bureau easily.

http://my-impressionz.tk

reply

[–] jbaddock 10 years ago

The fact that John shoots and kills the Bomber shows that he s already unhinged.

He certainly is, but then who wouldn't be? He's discovered (or always knew?) that he's both his own mother and father and that the only woman (or man?) he ever loved is a former version of himself and, in any case, he's being disoriented by all this hopping around in time, so, yes, he's gone a little bit bonkers. In reality, the only way he was going to avoid becoming the Fizzle Bomber at the end was by shooting himself (as opposed to the older version) in the laundromat. I suspect the reason he does so is because he's been hunting the Bomber for so long he's more or less programmed to do that once he finds him, but doesn't seem to realise that it won't change anything.

Personally, I don't need to have it spelled out for me why he then became the bomber - I think the clues are all there in the film - the increasing mental disorientation, the fact that he can still use the Time Machine (which will only add to his mental issues) and the fairly obvious hint that Robertson is manipulating him in any case in order to prevent even bigger crimes being committed. What I find more interesting is the question as to WHY he had to steal the baby in 1963 and take it back to 1945 so that it would become his own father and mother. OK, so it made him (her?) someone born out of time, with no ancestry, etc, but why was that so important? It made for an interesting back story, certainly, but, given the fact that he was presumably acting under orders, who actually initiated this sequence of events and why? It's one of the basic problems of any time travel story involving a time loop - how and why did it actually start? To which the answer is that it's a loop (the worm eating its own tail), so it's always happened and always will, no matter how many times you go through the cycle, but... That answer never quite satisfies me, to be honest. It always seems a little too pat, somehow, but maybe that's just me.

However, despite all that, I still enjoyed the film - it made me think, which is what I most want from a film, when all's said and done.

reply

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

or maybe, he s in the wrong time period and the bookshop girl rejected him...

then he went nuts

http://my-impressionz.tk

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

My theory is John/Jane was a creation by the agency itself. Genetically engineered.
He says it himself - who came first? the chichen or the egg? the rooster (i.e. DNA).

reply

[–] JoeyCunninghamLennox 9 years ago

Haha, thanks, I hadn't picked up on the special meaning of that joke.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

What I find more interesting is the question as to WHY he had to steal the baby in 1963 and take it back to 1945 so that it would become his own father and mother. OK, so it made him (her?) someone born out of time, with no ancestry, etc, but why was that so important? It made for an interesting back story, certainly, but, given the fact that he was presumably acting under orders, who actually initiated this sequence of events and why? It's one of the basic problems of any time travel story involving a time loop - how and why did it actually start?

As I said in other posts, there's no plausible starting cause. The events shown in this movie are impossible to happen, even still possible to imagine.

Why did he steal his baby self and sent to 1945? I believe he chose to do that because, at that moment, he was still poisoned for the love he felt for himself, and the desire to meet himself again.

All he wanted was to make possible for Jane and John to meet and fall in love. He had just made that meeting happen and watched their relationship fall apart. That brought back memories of when he was Jane and when he was John. He wanted to make that possible again, so he just decided to keep the loop going and steal the baby so that he could continue existing... and he could meet himself and feel love.

I still don't see Robertson giving orders to him, only observing and suggesting. Who ordered him, in fact, was himself. And he was about to finish fullfiling the orders he received.

reply

[–] GreyHunter 8 years ago

What I find more interesting is the question as to WHY he had to steal the baby in 1963 and take it back to 1945 so that it would become his own father and mother. OK, so it made him (her?) someone born out of time, with no ancestry, etc, but why was that so important?

My interpretations are 1)the movie itself emphasizes that it's important that agents have minimal connections to the world because they need to be able to interact without bias or desire to change their own circumstances; and 2) more importantly to John's specific case, is the fact that everyone who has ever lived has essentially two billion years of past connections to the world. It's impossible for them to interact with any time period without interacting with a world that has hundreds or thousands or millions of connections to them and who they are, even if those connections are separated by a hundred degrees of Kevin Bacon. A person who exists in a single loop covering less than a half-century would be uniquely divorced from the world. Their life, their death, their actions, are so self-contained that they are far less likely to, deliberately or inadvertently, create paradoxes involving their own existence.

As for who created the paradox in the first place...well, that's the magic of time-travel stories. We each have to make our own peace with the Grandfather Paradox. (Part of me wants to suggest that Mr. Robertson looks suspiciously like an older version of Ethan-John, just to make things even more complicated....)

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

It's simple. Killing the bomber proves he is ready to kill somebody to supposedly save somebody else. The fizzle bomber was doing essentially the same thing - doing the best he could to save others but sacrificing somebody in return.
John proved he can already do that same thing - therefore he was on the path to become the fizzle bomber already.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

This is what I don't understand. why? He shot the bomber. But now he knows he would become the bomber if he kept on using the time machine. So, being adamant that he would never become the bomber, you would think that he would have never used the time machine again (because he knew what would happened if he did).

For some times, John Jane didn't know what was happening, as everything that happens to him until he first meets himself in the bar.

But other times, he knew lots of things, and had the chance of making choices to change the course of events. When he meets himself on the garden after leaving Jane, he could have killed himself, before he could take his baby self back in time.

While he had the time machine, at any time he could travel to kill himself, at any moment he had already lived and knew where he'd be. But, he not only changed his choices over his future, but he also never tried to change anything from his past.

I think that's the only paradox this movie doesn't have, he travel in time to change his past. He suffers a lot, regrets and gets angry, but when the time comes, he always do the same, and never looks back.

It seems that he just conforms with the apparent predestination of the facts of his life, and just follows that predestination when he discovers what's happening. He did it many times over his life, the event you talk about is just one more of those.

reply

[–] carl_johnson-1 10 years ago

It's pretty simple: The Fizzle Bomber remembers shooting the Fizzle Bomber in the laundrymat. He knows that's what he did, and it's part of his history that evntually led to him becoming the Fizzle Bomber.

Fizzle is just plain nuts and hopes that he can talk Bartender John out of doing it. Of course, he should also remember the Fizzle Bomber tried to talk him out of it as well, and it didn't work.

reply

[–] tagheuer25 10 years ago

Still doesn't explain why. Yes, the fizzle bomber was nuts, but john the guy who walked into the laundry seems to still be sane. He was disgusted to know that it was his older self who's the bomber and was adamant he would never be him. I just don't see how shooting the guy will make him the bomber and how NOT shooting him wll not make him the bomber. Seems to me, if it was predestination, killing or not killing the bomber would still make him the bomber. And the movie showed that the future/past can be changed when the bomber showed news clippings from the past that did not happen and future that will not happen.

We assume that further usage of the time machine will decay his sanity. John must have gathered this himself by talking to the bomber. So knowing he will become the bomber if he continue using the time machine, he could have chosen not to use it anymore, thereby thwarting his impending insanity. Seems like a reasonable conclusion or am I missing something here?

reply

[–] gotmyorangecrush 10 years ago

The way I see it, the damage has already been done. Sure, his younger self in the laundromat wasn't crazy yet but we are given hints in the film that the number of jumps he has already done is excessive. At the very beginning, when he has the reconstructive surgery, the doctor says to him, "Its not just the physical injuries, you have logged more hours than any of the other agents I have been assigned to. The risks are real". Immediately following this scene we are shown an evaluation sheet in which the following are listed:

Early stages of Psychosis
Mood swings
Bouts of depression

So the way I see it, the damage has really already been done and the effects are already setting in even before he makes any of those additional jumps. Basically, I see it as a degenerative condition so he will already be suffering severe phycological effects before he makes any of those additional jumps. It will just take a few years for his condition to deteriorate.

In other words, this is how I see it going down. He would leave the laundromat with the intention of not becoming the Fizzle bomber. He would go home and go on living his life. For example, we know he starts dating the girl at the store, given his knowledge of her cooking and birthmark. None of this would matter as again the way I see it, the damage has already been done. His mental condition would continue to worsen as the years went by, due to all of the jumps he has already undertaken. Eventually, he will obviously reach a point where his concerns about becoming the Fizzle bomber will be overshadowed by his worsening psychosis, at which point he begins making those additional jumps, which in turn only make his condition even worse.

That at least is how I see it going down. The whole spiel about wether he shoots the older version in the laundromat will dictate wether or not he becomes the Fizzle Bomber, I don't buy that for second. I think that was just his older self trying to convince the younger self not to shoot him. He's going to become the bomber regardless of what he does at that point as again, the damage has already been done with all of the jumps he had already taken, which goes right to the heart of predestination. Nothing he could do at that point could really change anything.

Still Shooting With Film!

reply

[–] tagheuer25 10 years ago

I also saw that, "early signs of pyschosis", however as you noted and agreed, he wasn't insane yet at that point. Knowing he will be later, he could have destroyed the time machine right after killing the bomber. Then he can't do anything about it anymore even if he goes insane later.

But for a little suspension of disbelief, I can also see it the way you said it could have happened. But then, the old john (bomber) was giving him false choices. He said if he didn't shoot him, he can break the cycle. He won't be the bomber. The question is why? If it's predestination, even if he didn't shoot him,
he would still become the bomber. And if he does indeed able to break the cycle by not shooting him, then it creates a conundrum where a non-existent bomber gave him information that changed his mind into not becoming the bomber.

Anyway, I would have loved to see how he turned into the bomber. The film basically skipped this altogether, which is exactly why I have a problem with it. If there's part 2, this will be the best to focus on. how john eventually become the bomber even if he already knew beforehand and tries not to become the bomber but failed.

reply

[–] carl_johnson-1 10 years ago

He could destroy his time machine, in an effort to prevent him from becoming the Fizzle Bomber. And, who knows, perhaps destroying the machine triggers the explosion that kills 11,000.

Even so, say he does still go insane, he could then go get the Fizzle Bomber's time machine and use that. He'd need to destroy both of them.

Regardless, I think he was already insane when he shot Fizzle. He'd made a number of additional jumps since the "mild psychosis" diagnosis, many close together, and many over long stretches of time. He'd warned young John against both.

You could make the claim that Bartender John still seemed sane, but then, didn't the Fizzle Bomber too? Maybe judging by his appearance, he seems to have lost it. But by what he said? Didn't it make sense? Did it show him to be sane or insane?

The logic of killing a few to save a hundred doesn't seem insane off-hand to me. But we see that Bartender John is already prepared to make that same argument. He thinks he can kill one to save thousands. The slippery slope has started. If Fizzle is insane, so is Bartender John at the laundrymat.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

He was a newborn baby when he first traveled in time. If time travel can make a guys go nuts, he already had a bad start.

reply

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

Probably true. Or perhaps that initial touch of crazy is even responsible for how exceptionally intelligent she is.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

Or maybe because he "has no history", that alone makes him exceptional.

reply

[–] gotmyorangecrush 10 years ago

In my opinion, destroying the time machine wouldn't have changed anything as again, the damage had already been done. Even if he destroys the time machine, he's still got the older versions model and he is still going to go insane and become the fizzle bomber. And again, I don't buy that spiel in the laundromat one bit. I saw that as just his older self trying to stop the younger version from shooting him. Whats the most powerful thing he could say to him if he really wanted to stop the younger version from shooting and killing him? It would be something along the lines of

"you shoot me and you become me. Don't shoot me and you can break the pattern and not become the Fizzle Bomber"

Again, I saw that as nothing more than a ploy by his older self so his younger self wouldn't shoot him. the way I see it, he was going to become the fizzle bomber regardless of the choices he makes at that point as he will slowly go insane regardless.

Again, that was how I saw everything.

Still Shooting With Film!

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

The explanation he provides for becoming the bomber is that he'd save more lives doing so. He seems obsessed into saving highest amount of lives. Of course, me may just be crazy and have not saved so many lives as he claims, or even have killed people with the bomb with no real effect.

Not much is explained indeed on what happens after that scene and how he decides to be a terrorist. At that point it's pretty sure he's against it and doesn't imagine him doing such thing.

Maybe it's just a joke, revolving what the whole movie shows. He interacts with himself, discover things he didn't know, and seems to have choices but chooses to remain on the loop and do the thing he might regret.

I think the idea of he either shooting himself and becoming Fizzle or not shooting and not becoming, is just that his older self remembers killing the Fizzle in his past. He knows it's a step on moving to the direction that he becomes Fizzle. If he'd choose to not shoot, he'd change the course of the predestination, and move on other direction.

Also, I don't see Fizzle trying to make him not shoot. He knew he'd be there, if he didn't wanna be shot he'd just not be in that place, as he did other times when he was chased by his younger self. I think he was challenging him, saying it was inevitable, and he was ready to die.

The point in this scene is to show, again, he meeting his younger self and providing guidances based on what he knows will happen.

It's interesting that the movie asks what we/he'd do, if we/he'd meet the person that destroyed his life, and could kill that person. He meets himself many times, and always chooses to not take the chance and kill himself, until now. But, if he'd really want to kill himself, he could just go to a time when he was vulnerable and kill him.

reply

[–] ckaharbin 10 years ago

I had to make an account just to set you monkeys straight.

The older version of him had lost a large portion of reality, he remembered what had happened and would refer to it at him "always saying that" implying that he ever lived it more than once, he's only remembering what he once said. So i think it's safe to say he felt the need to give his younger self the option not to kill him and not to become the bomber (bc killing him leaves him with the image of his future self being the fizzle bomber whose attacks basically created the Time Travel bureau in the first place [this may not be too far fetched but I had the feeling throughout the movie, given the protagonists paradoxical nature, that he/she may have been the only actual temporal agent]) thinking in his warped perception something might change, and/or he knew he would be killed but if so that's not a bad thing bc he felt so justified in killing hundreds to save thousands.

So in the end J is left with psychosis bearing down, an image of himself in the future, and the knowledge that becoming the fizzle bomber(jumping thruough time to bomb certain places) saves more than it kills. Whoever said they need to make a 2nd movie didn't get that? Maybe you should downgrade from solid food for a while my man, theyre putting all kinds of healthy development stuff in the gerber these days.

He could've destroyed the machine, he couldve pulled a Looper and killed himself, but then the entire paradox of him/her wouldve left existence. J's life of jumping between decades over and over again must have some weight on the universe at that point. To wipe it all out at once, could possibly cause the universe to implode, like who knows?

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Yep, I agree with a lot of what you have said... 

People keep mentioning 'Destroying the time machine'. BUT... to me anyway, at least ONE of the key points is when the Fizzle Bomber asks his younger version, 'You didn't report the decommission malfunction, did you?' That was one of the first things he said. Now, despite the INSANELY paradoxical and convoluted story, to me that was possibly THE ONLY practical solution. In other words, right at that moment, the younger version should have immediately realized that THAT was exactly what he needed to do. Because then (supposedly) that would prevent him from ever using it again to continue on and do whatever further damage that was 'Predestined' to occur. This is ASSUMING, of course, that he wasn't too far gone already (which at that point, to me it really didn't seem like he was) thus HOPEFULLY preventing his further deterioration.

Just a thought...

I now have over 6700 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] gotmyorangecrush 10 years ago

Your forgetting the fact that the disease was degenerative. Even if he didn't continue to make jumps, its very likely he stlll would have gone insane. Again, this is clearly pointed out at the very beginning of the film.

Still Shooting With Film!

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Yes, you are quite right, BUT... if at THAT MOMENT (despite further complete future degeneration) he had (as I said) realized the importance of IMMEDIATELY reporting that the machine did not decommission, then they would have deactivated it right then and there, regardless of how insane he got later on. Therefore, to me anyway, THAT would have been the ONE thing that might have had a chance of averting the 'predestined' future events.

That was my point... NOT that he wouldn't also still go insane later on, but that by that ONE timely act, he possibly could have fixed everything. The fact that he would likely deteriorate further would be irrelevant because the machine would have then been properly decommissioned.

I now have over 6700 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

Robertson talks about Fizzle with admiration. I believe Robertson already knew John was Fizzle, and was using John to improve the agency.

So, if Robertson knew it, and also knew that the machine didn't decomission. And if he knew it and didn't take it, I doubt that reporting would make any difference.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 9 years ago

Hmmm... interesting thought... 

If your supposition is correct, then yes, you might have a very good point there...

Hadn't thought of that... nice reasoning mate! 

I now have over 7000 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

lol tnx

We can have fun talking about the movie and the theories used to inspire it, but we can't talk about it asking for plausible explanations, because the events in the movie aren't plausible at all.

But very interesting, somebody that gives birth to himself as his own father and mother, and ends up killing himself and living to face the execution later.

I haven't seen a unique evidence that Robertson manipulates John Jane's action. He just watches and admires. He could stop or create obstacles, and he provides the tools for John Jane to act, but he seems to never tell what to do or not do.

And if we consider that John Jane is trapped on a loop that can't change, Robertson would also be unable to change what "have already" happened.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 9 years ago

Well, there is the crux of the situation (at least to me...)

IF Robertson is somehow manipulating things, then my first comment about reporting that the machine did not decommission may indeed, like you said, be irrelevant, and the situation may or may not be in some kind of causal loop. However, and I suppose this is the whole point of the film (going by the title) if everything that happened in his case is indeed 'Predestined', then, well, that's that...

I now have over 7000 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] carl_johnson-1 10 years ago

In fact, the movie shows that things cannot be changed. It only works in a fixed timeline.

Fizzle knows that Bartender John shooting Fizzle is what made him become the Fizzle Bomber himself. He's lived through that scenario.

Now he's cray-cray and thinks he can change time, so tries to prevent Bartender John from shooting him. It's a fixed timeline, so it was bound to fail and play out the same way Fizzle remembered.

Asking what would happen if Bartender John did not shoot Fizzle is the same thing as asking any other question that would break the paradox. There is no answer other than they can't not do what they already did.

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

Actually it's interesting that people with transitive amnesia - e.g. somebody who only can remember up to 90seconds for instance replay almost like machines their conversation to the t. We are really predictable machines however much we want to think we have a uniqueness of having a conscious choice. We are just predictable biological machines.

reply

[–] spuzer55 10 years ago

Carl_johnson-1 has it right. Think of it this way- this is a time loop. Whatever changes Jane/John/Fizzle Bomber has already made to the timeline are now constant. At each step of his/her life John is making the same choices along the way, mostly because it's the most obvious choice, or the consequences would cause him not to exist (one possible outcome).

The Fizzle Bomber explains to John that he has to shoot him for the loop to continue (he knows because he's lived it himself). FB knows how John sees him- a perspective he tries to rationalize. FB knows what John wants and what he's going to do next- he tells him details about his life with the book store girl, telling him he'll eventually become dissatisfied by her. Emotionally FB is unhinged, but what he says makes sense. I don't particularly think that FB wants to change John's mind, so much as inform him of the facts and give him the option to. My guess is John does not/cannot accept that he could some day, in any way become the Fizzle Bomber: a man he's spent his entire life pursuing- him whole purpose. He's in shock and I imagine he doesn't want to believe anything FB says, so he doesn't takes it at face value when FB tells John the loop would continue if he shoots him- because he simply doesn't believe it. Then John quotes something we've heard before at the beginning of the movie ("What if I can put him in front of you? The man who ruined your life. If I can guarantee you can get away with it, would you kill him?".

The film (and the Fizzle Bomber) implies that Robertson is responsible for orchestrating or influencing John's loop, and from what we see that certainly seems to be the case. He appears just as John is about to make that crucial decision to steal the baby to bring back to 1945, calling it a "special occasion" and rationalizing why is "has to be done", he's there to bring Jane into the space program, and he's there to make sure her condition isn't revealed to anyone at the wrong time. He's also there to explain that the organization has grown because of the FB, and when John calls him a terrorist he responds "Nothing's that simple". Robertson's also responsible for creating the emptiness and hoplessness that we see in the Unmarried Mother when we first meet her/him in the bar- a person without a purpose, faith in the world or himself (like a retired agent, perhaps?). I'm sure Robertson's also responsible for teaching John the quote used in the beginning of the movie to influence his actions at the end.

Now, whether such circumstances are possible to ever orchestrate- with regard to Robertson, the time loop, the given paradoxes and events, is another question entirely and should be taken with a grain of salt. But that's the story thats been set up, and from the way it's been presented, it's clear John is stuck in a infinite loop, his actions influenced and ultimately predetermined. Regardless of what is said about John's lack of ties to history, if he hypothetically does manage to snap himself out of the loop (by not killing himself as FB, for example), he would still massively impact the timeline and himself, given how much he's effected it. It's impossible to tell how much though because the presence of the Fizzle Bomber passively and actively intertwines into most of his life, making it impossible to comprehend even without paradoxes. Ultimately, the events inside the time loop are what is important here.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Very nicely said mate! 

But, the ONLY question I have with regard to Robertson, and YES, I agree that the entire film seems to me to make it look like he is behind everything, but... WHY...? What could POSSIBLY be his motivation to do all this and to go to such detail and trouble to arrange everything just so...? WHY...? Why go to SO much trouble to 'continue the loop'? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I now have over 6700 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] spuzer55 10 years ago

Have you had a look at my rants in the "Please explain..who did it start with" thread? I go into quite a bit of detail about precisely that- take note of the long-winded ones towards the end.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Okidoke; I will, thanks!

I now have over 6700 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] G_Runciter 10 years ago

God, there are a few answers to your question that just completely miss the point (Chazz, for example, apparently never understands the actual question, and talks about something else, not just here, but in other topics too)...
I think the answer is simply that he was having serious psychological problems already. Granted, he is much less insane in that last scene than his older self, but the movie hints that he always shared the notion that some people "need to go", and the constant jumps probably have already had their effects on his psyche

reply

[–] theocanada 10 years ago

The reason he says "if you shoot me you become me" is because shooting himself is the break that pushes him over the edge. He realizes he's responsible for his own fate. The person he absolutely hates for ruining his life turns out to be himself. Shooting himself is a trauma, combined with the trauma of the revelation. From there he goes full on nutty for obviously several decades before finally traveling back to set off the bomb.

reply

[–] nekonax 8 years ago

I just don't see how shooting the guy will make him the bomber and how NOT shooting him wll not make him the bomber.

It's a false dilemma. The Bomber thinks that it's possible to change the Barkeep's decision, even though he remembers having been the Barkeep himself and having killed the Bomber in his past.

In reality, everyone's fate was sealed from the start. That's what the word 'predestination' means. There is only one timeline and no one can really change anything because, if they could you, they would have.

In fact, attemps to change the future are either
--Schrödinger's cat

reply

[–] martinemcmahon 10 years ago

How many times have you been adament about something youve then gone back on for one reason or another? How many times have you "swore" to wake up early only to hit the snooze button anyway? Things happen between us making promices to ourselves and the event the promice pertains to.

For the fizzle bomber, it cuts us out early. We dont see anything after he shoots himself. Afterwards, hes left to his own devices, and his own panic to his realization that hes the bomber. He could go to the body, look at the clippings, and then face the very dilemma the bomber had to make, "do you sacrifice these few to save these many?" Maybe he goes to those futures just to see if they're legitimate. Maybe he actually doesn't become the bomber, only then he notes that those futures actually happen, so he then decides to go back and make "right" on it. Maybe all of that jumping puts the dementia in his head that causes the solution of the bombing to be that much more attractive.

Or John goes back to his room to look at the time device and notes how easy it would be to just go back to the bearau, report his discovery, and accept his concencenses (probably death...), but then he realizes he could just kill himself right then and there and "remove himself from the equation". Right before he does so, however, another thought creeps into his head.

If he kills himself, the bombings are prevented, but so is the primary driving force that lead his life. He ceases to exist in the way that lead to him killing himself in order to stop himself as the bomber. Does he then make the choice that potentially rips at the fabric of reality?

Welcome to time travel.

reply

[–] tagheuer25 10 years ago

Yeah, if he was that adamant into not becoming the bomber, I think he would have destroyed the time machine right then and there. Then he can't do anything about it anymore. Even if he "lapses" or becomes insane later.

Anyway you are right, the film cuts us out early and it is why I have a problem with the ending. Anyway, the things and dilemmas you mentioned would be good material for a sequel which focuses on how john eventually becomes the bomber. Maybe it could present us a believable storyline where john opts not to destroy the time machine even when he knows it will soon end up making him crazy and ultimately killing him.

reply

[–] caseycomb 10 years ago

I think you're missing the point, everything was predetermined even the time machine and everything that happened. There was no changing it because it was all meant to be. Trying to change the past and everything else all unfolded the same way no matter what they tried to do, in fact it was one of the very same reason things turned out how they did in the first place. There is no changing the past or future because everything including discovering time travel is predetermined. I think you have this idea that if you can travel in time you can change something when in reality it has already happened.

reply

[–] tagheuer25 10 years ago

That seems to be the case. But that would be in conflict with 1) The clippings of news articles from future and past that the bomber prevented from happening. It means events can be changed 2) The choice the bomber said john had. That if he didn't shoot him, he can break the cycle. 3) The presence of a temporal bureau itself where its main purpose is to prevent past or future crimes. If you can't change anything, then why do you even have a bureau with that specific purpose. Then it would seem that predestination only applies when it wouldn't alter john's story. Otherwise, predestination can be broken.

reply

[–] nakkas 10 years ago

While it was deliberately left open at the end I guess, I'm very interested not only how he becomes the Fizzle Bomber, but also what motivates him. His last words were "and I miss you [Jane/John] dreadfully". The Fizzle Bomber also tells him right before he shoots him that he can only escape this fate of becoming the bomber by deciding to love him again. The barkeep however loves only his former self, i.e. his past, and he can't bring himself to love his future self (the guy who he thinks ruined his whole life). So what happens after he shoots the Fizzle Bomber? My theory: the psychological effects of his previous time travels make him become increasingly unhinged, and he starts pining for Jane. He makes love become his purpose (remember what he said to John in the bar) and he starts blowing up things in order to create the necessary situation for John to meet Jane, and also in order to save many by killing few (his moral justification for the bombings at least). But why would his old self, the Fizzle Bomber, ask him not to shoot him? Does he want the circle to be broken, was there some mental clarity in his insanity?

I also believe that Robertson consciously made the time machine fail during decommissioning, so that the barkeep would go on to become the Fizzle Bomber. That's why he also gave him info on where the bomber would be found. Without the Fizzle Bomber the agent wouldn't have had a purpose (his Moby Dick), and without his motivation the Bureau couldn't have used him to stop several other attacks. So Robertson himself also believes in the morality of sacrificing many to save even more people. Which brings me to the last part. If the Fizzle Bomber had survived being shot, maybe some other agents took him to 1985 or rather 1992, stitched him up, altered his face once more, psychopharmaceutically treated his psychosis and made him become Robertson. It's a stretch, but possible? Or it was just all in his mind lol

"Who wants to send a message to Germany?!" Fredrick Zoller (Stolz der Nation, 1944)

reply

[–] tagheuer25 10 years ago

Come to think of it, he has the same mustache. lol. Would be fun and more twisted if that were the case. Meaning apart from giving birth to herself, impregnating herself, killing himself, he also controlled and manipulated himself from the start. That would be something. But no, he emptied a full barrel into the bomber. He would be dead in an instant. I don't think the director left a room for that. It would be quite unbelievable if he survived that shooting.

Yes, the final scene did suggest that he was going to use the time machine again because of jane. (he said he missed her while looking at the kit). He was in 1974 and at that time jane already had a sex change operation. So maybe he went back again to meet her. But then, he couldn't have because the john sarah version had no idea who he was (barkeeper). So it was in fact the first time he saw his altered self. He in fact used the kit a lot of times more (maybe hundreds) as suggested by his thick compilation of news clips. But never to meet her as suggested by the ending. The bomber also revealed that he lived with the antique dealer girl. Didn't say how long, but long enough for him to know that she wasn't a good cook and couldn't handle their secrets, suggesting he told her about his "adventures". So he must have lived in that time long enough or he keeps it as his base time (goes back to that time when he's done and not to the time where jane is still a female).

Here's another interesting thing I noticed, maybe you noticed it too. The bomber in the laundry had a limp right arm. The same arm that was shot when he still john (sarah) and was trying to defuse the bomb. But the bomber who fought the barkeep had a pretty good right arm in the fight scene. As well as the barkeep himself. So I don't what's the significance of that. There was no other scene where his arm got hurt and the director made sure his limp arm was noticed.

reply

[–] nakkas 10 years ago

Having watched it a second time I'm still not sure about certain aspects, but from a psychological point of view I noticed two underlying themes. The first is purpose versus love (as motives in life) and the other is the issue of accepting yourself, i.e. who you are, versus not being able to let go of your past. After retiring and killing Fizzle, Barkeep has no purpose in life anymore. He tries living a normal life but he simply can't relate to any other person, so he has neither purpose nor love. For some reason he starts to become the Fizzle bomber; maybe Robertson visits him once more and coaxes him to start bombing. Remember how he tells Barkeep how important the Fizzle Bomber was for the bureau's effectiveness, and that's he's not simply a terrorist? Maybe Robertson gave him purpose again, and Barkeep (slowly becoming mentally unstable anyway) willingly accepted, especially since that meant ensuring that John meets Jane etc.

Yes, I also noticed how Fizzle's right arm was limp! I never caught any corresponding clue though; Robertson e.g. never had a limp arm in any scene. But what I noticed was how rapt Robertson watched Jane during her training, almost lovingly. That would make sense if he was an older Barkeep/Fizzle, as he said he misses her/him dreadfully after retiring. Considering that time travelling is possible from 1928 to 2034 (53 +/- zero point) and that that world's 1960s were technologically more advanced than our's (most likely thanks to the Bureau "upgrading" the past), it would be well possible that the Bureau from the 2030s gave advanced technology to their 1980s colleagues. Technology that is able to resuscitate a bullet riddled Fizzle Bomber ;-)

Ok, I've given up on understanding every little aspect of it, it works on many different levels, that's good enough for me!

"Who wants to send a message to Germany?!" Fredrick Zoller (Stolz der Nation, 1944)

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

I think in his statement about FB Robertson meant that the FB gave them purpose and justification to exist. Kind of like criminals do for the existence of law enforcement. Without criminals who needs cops?
But I doubt Robertson was a stitched up/resuscitated FB. FB was obviously crazy at that point and why would they even convert him to Robertson rather than just resuscitate him as he was if he was such an asset to the organization as he was. I think the evidence to support Robertson being a revived FB is flimsy at best.

reply

[–] Lord-Bigglesworth 10 years ago

Which brings me to the last part. If the Fizzle Bomber had survived being shot, maybe some other agents took him to 1985 or rather 1992, stitched him up, altered his face once more, psychopharmaceutically treated his psychosis and made him become Robertson. It's a stretch, but possible? Or it was just all in his mind lol

I also had that same suspicion. They don't strongly suggest this, but they did leave a pretty big nudge... when Robertson says something along the lines of how much the Fizzle Bomber had helped mold their organization.

You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

For some good parts of his life, I believe John Jane is moved by the desire of meeting himself. He suffered a lot, but believed that was necessary to meet him. He'd either choose to cease his existence, or to keep hurting himself so the meeting could happen.

After all the interactions required for the meeting to happen and him to be born are concluded, he starts working on the agency, chasing murderers, specially the Fizzle Bomber. Once he finally finds out he is the bomber, I think he starts working to avoid the highest number of deaths possible, even if it requires to kill some. I think he also decided to become the bomber so that he could meet himself again, in the times they fight (to the point he burns his own face, omg!) and then on the mast encounter. he just keeps wanting to revive the moments he loved himself, and those meetings are the closest he can get.

For sure Robertson agrees with everything that John Jane did, and knew some of the events before John Jane did. But I don't think Robertson made any action to change anything, he just let things happen as they did, without forcing or stopping anything.

If I'm right, he knew the time machine would fail to decomission, but he just let it go. I don't think he messed with it so it wouldn't.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Nice logic...

Good points... 

I now have over 6700 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

That's a good point! They had proof of the crimes that never happened because timeline was changed.

Let's remember, the whole movie is based on paradoxes. Basicly, if they go back in time to stop a crime (that they know had happened) from happening, they won't know it happens, then they don't go back to stop it, then it happens, and so on.

BUT, if something remains from the avoided timeline, then we have different timelines merging, probably as a result of folding them. And that's a proof that past things can actually be changed.

I suppose that these crimes' causes aren't related to the agency, so they aren't "predestined". That's different for John Jane, who interacts and affects himself so many times. Anything he'd do differently would result in him not existing at all, so he can't change his life once he had already chose and done those things.

reply

[–] maxthepupp 9 years ago

Really enjoyed reading this thread ! More than the movie......

reply

[–] Painbow 10 years ago

However, the Bomber didnt seem to realise that John was gonna shoot him.

The predestination is set in motion, the moment he shots the bomber

Of course the fizzle bomber knew that John was going to shoot him. That's why he says, "if you shoot me, you'll become me".

He simply meant that when he was the younger version of John who came into the laundromat, he shot the older version and so if young John does the same thing (and also shoots him), he is destined to follow the same path

Why does young John choose to shoot. Well mostly because it's predestined but at that moment, I think young John can't comprehend what he's finding out. (and action provides the illusion of free will whereas inaction does not)

reply

[–] howard_w13 10 years ago

It would be quite unbelievable if he survived that shooting.

Which actually wouldn't be too far-fetched. The Fizzle Bomber knew the day was coming when he'd face his younger self.....maybe he took some precautions?

--------
The movie has a plot hole?!?
EVERY FRIGGIN' MOVIE HAS A FRIGGIN' PLOT HOLE!!!!!

reply

[–] tagheuer25 10 years ago

First shot shows he drew blood. Meaning he wasn't wearing any vest. There isn't really any more precautions you can take against bullets apart from wearing a vest. It is too far-fetched.

reply

[–] Painbow 10 years ago

He could simply be wearing a bullet proof vest with vials of fake blood on the front of it (he knows young John will shoot him in the chest area)

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago



Actually, you bring up an interesting point... Wouldn't the FB have known PRECISELY when his younger version was gonna show up...???

I now have over 6700 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

He was also pretty unhinged and I doubt he cared if he lived or died. To me it seemed like he welcomed death.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 9 years ago

We can pretty much be sure he died.

The loop was closed. He was borned from himself, and he killed himself.

He as FB *wanted* to be shot. He wanted to meet himself one last time, and wanted to fulfill what he did in his past. He never tried to change the course of actions in his whole life.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 10 years ago

He wasn't completely level-headed. If you remember earlier int he movie, when they sent him on his last mission, there was a mention of his mind starting to break down from the time travel.

Plus, we're talking about a guy who is aware of the fact that he's his own mother and father. There's no escaping the kind of mental anguish that causes.

Add to the fact that he finds out the person he has been chasing and that is only going to continue to eat away at his mind.

For my latest movie reviews and news: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com

reply

[–] aristideau 10 years ago

Side effects of time travel screws up your mind. Couple that with his "early stages of psychosis" from that brief close up of his doctors report at the start of the film and the onset of dementia explains his increasingly erratic behaviour.

reply

[–] ichbinsisyphos 10 years ago

I am not really a fan of the "it's a paradox, no further questions allowed!" attitiude, but I feel the by the end the movie has done a well enough job to explain the unavoidability of everything. The existence of the fizzle bomber is John's main motivation for everything, then it turns out it was him all along, too. The paradox is in place, everything that needs to happen for it to exist, does happen, and the only proof necessary is the fact that the paradox is there. Whatever he does, even if the goal would be to avoid the paradox (which isn't even ever his goal, as far as I remember) makes it happen, and is likely necessary for it to happen.

I will now end this debate with you.

reply

[–] tempura-2 10 years ago

Hi,
Alot of people seem to be missing the point.

The point is Johns timeline is linear and exists within its own paradox and is constrained by fate more so than any other. You'll note in the end - there exists only subtle changes to his own paradoxical recursion. re: "I love her too."

However, as he was exposed to, and witness of, his own future and past selves on multiple occasions - the undeniable and logical conclusion is that, even though an unfortunate and cruel "Predestined" fate. His own (pre) existence is directly related (tied) to that of the existence of the "Fizzle Bomber" (which unfortunately, is him - for arguments sake, it could be someone else.)

If the New York disaster never occured, it is likely John/Jane would never exist. Regardless of sanity, self preservation would also ensure that such events would be carried out.

HOWEVER. (yes there's more).
This could be the first iterative instance of this recursion (entry point) that we observed in the movie. Thus, subtle variations aside (dialogue) - Same "predestined" events would still be required to occur inorder for John/Jane to exist. Thus (sigh), the first (iterative instance) of the older self he witnessed was truely insane. However, in the next instance (recursion). He could be perfectly sane, but resigned to the fact.

"We gotta do what we gotta do!" - And was his final expression in the movie an acceptance of this fact?

Just to be clear, the dictations along with definative events (including those of the Fizzle Bomber) must occur in order ensure existence. What we witnessed was an individuals efforts to ensure existence. As an aside - Mr Robertson could well be aware of this as well (leading him to his furture self) - as such modifications (existence of the Fizzle Bomber) of the timeline need to be ensured.

Exhausting and unfortunate, and from this you could conclude it is a rather depressing movie.
Regards.
The Ouroburos

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Heh, Ouroboros is right!

Some intriguing reasoning there... 

But again, where I kind of get tripped up is, 'Motivation'... 'Ensure existence'...? Yes, it appears that way, but that implies that the individual(s) are already aware of the entire time line (that apparently cannot be changed, I guess) So, WHY exactly would either Ethan Hawk's character or Robertson or whoever WANT so carefully and precisely to 'Preserve' the timeline, so to speak? Why...???

To me anyway (until someone else explains it) THAT is the only weak point of the film; is really presenting any credible REASON as to WHY these people are working so damn hard to preserve this particular time line.

Just my lowly and wretched impression anyway...

I now have over 6700 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK! 

reply

[–] carl_johnson-1 10 years ago

Why, indeed. But the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle comes to the rescue here.

Only timelines that cannot be changed are allowed. If you know the future and can change it to be something else, then clearly, you didn't know the future. You got a possible future, perhaps. But per Novikov, that possibility is 0%. It won't happen.

Instead, say you know the future, and no matter what you try, you cannot stop it from happening. Heck, you might even want it to happen. Or perhaps trying to change it actually causes it to come about. For whatever reason, the future you saw comes to pass and nothing is changed. Novikov's Principle would then allow this timeline. Possibility > 0%.

So while it may then seem that everyone in the timeline is just going through the motions because they feel they have to (like mindless "Zombies"), that's not always the case. Some do, certainly. But others might be trying to change things (unsuccessfully). We see Barkeep and Fizzle take this approach. Many more just have no clue as the future they're predestined for, so feel a sense of free will through ignorance.

So why try to "preserve" such a timeline? Certainly, the Bureau appears to be working under the impetus that it's their job to fulfill the past. No deviating from the mission. And they do prevent crime this way, by having always been there to prevent it. So there's another good reason for the Bureau to preserve the past.

John's an Agent, so he may just feel like he needs to follow the same orders from the Bureau. Also, he's got some skin in the game himself. Self-preservation can be a strong motivator. And then there's his psychosis and the hope that there's always a chance he'll get the Fizzle Bomber one-day. He may feel that if he keeps things the way they happened, he'll reduce the variables, allowing a cleaner shot at Fizzle. If he destroys the timeline by changing anything, he might lose Fizzle forever, his chance at vengeance lost.

reply