MovieChat Forums > Predestination (2015) Discussion > EXPLANATION !!! ;)

EXPLANATION !!! ;)

posted 9 years ago by quinziano
12 replies | jump to latest

It is all just a HUGE Paradox... so you don't have to understand when it begin..
It never begin and never end... It was always been there and it will be always there

The characters are:

little Jane
Jane as an adult
The first John
the second John (Ethan Hawke)
the Fizzle Bomber

AND THEY ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON !!...
She/he is the daughter/son of herself with himself... so nobody can exist before the others

here's the time line (the Jane/John life...not the movie)

Little Jane was born and is kidnapped by the second John and is carried in the past
Little Jane grows and becomes the adult Jane.
The adult Jane meets first John out of the university
Jane and John fall in love and conceive little Jane
Jane gives birth to little Jane and undergoes physical damage during birth and become the first John
First John starts living as a man and writes for a magazine
The first John meets the second John at the bar
The two John travel together in the past
The first John meets Jane out of the university
The first John leave Jane and starts chasing the Fizzle bomber
The first John suffers face-burns in a meeting with the Fizzle Bomber (movie start)
The first John becomes the second John (Ethan Hawke)
The second John goes to the bar to meet the first John
Together they go into the past
While the first John meets Jane out of the university:
the second John succeeds only to help the first John just burned, and then goes to the future to kidnap little Jane and takes her in the past to start again the circle.
The second John fetches the first John who has to leave Jane
The second John retires
The second John discovers that Fizzle bomber is himself and kills him
The second John understands that the only thing he wants is to meet again with himself and decides to really start to be the Fizzle Bomber
If there were not the Fizzle bomber John would have no one to hunt, so he decide to start again the circle

... And again .... and again .... and again ... and again ....

SUCH A GREAT MOVIE !!!!!!
IT DESERVE WAY MORE THE 7.4 RATING !!!!! (sorry for my English)

[–] purefault 8 years ago

My theory is that originally, the main character was a "normal" person, but through time travel, he eventually changed his past which lead to him becoming who he is... if that makes sense. So he has a normal original, but eventually ended up creating his own paradox.

[–] quinziano 8 years ago

a paradox is a paradox when it can't be possible.
So you don't even have to try to explain it.
they try to keep it in your mind with the constant phrase if it came first the chicken or the egg.
The thing is that the main character is the daughter/son of herself with himself, and that's already something that cannot be changed.
And only that situation can make the baby hermaphroditic and able to change from female to male, and that alone makes her able to only fall in love only with himself.
If you try to change even just something history has no meaning.
They want you to understand that it is a paradox that has always been there and always will be.

For example if the main character is a normal man that have sex with a normal woman, they would have a normal daughter, you will never be able to create this paradox and make her able to change from female to male and have sex with himself and also have herself as a daughter ;)

[–] adrianmantsch83 8 years ago

There was no "normal original". The events were always supposed to happen like that.

That's the whole point of a predestination paradox: the timeline is a circle, with no beginning and no end.

[–] sevastokrator 8 years ago

@quinziano, Add Robertson, and remove the circle (everything has happened exactly once, and not over and over again, only with a messed up timeline).

[–] sunquake-1 8 years ago

I haven't seen this movie in a while, but how does he not recognize himself as Jane when he goes back and meets her? Does he lose his memory somehow or does he recognize himself and just falls in love with himself as a woman?

[–] Matt_2019 8 years ago

John says at the bar that "I don't have any photos of myself as a little girl, I don't even know what I looked like, it's more a feeling now". When John meets Jane, he sees her as "beautiful" as he had never seen his previous girl self, but he found her/him to be beautiful, if that makes any sense.

[–] quinziano 8 years ago

he recognised her immediately.
he remembered that scene when, as a woman, she hit a man and start talking and falling in love with him. he understood everything about his life till that momemt immediately. after that he will also understand being ethan hawke when he came back to stop their relationship.

[–] cassbtt 8 years ago

Your questions seem to have been debated throughout this thread, but I'll tack on one more "bug" that bothers me: If they're all the same person, how is it that lovely Sarah Snook at 5'5" can be tremendous Ethan Hawke at 5'10"?

I know they did "extensive" surgery etc., but this curiosity would have been eliminated if the two leads had been a little closer in height.

Just saw this movie last night and am still in awe. Very very well done indeed. Worth another couple of viewings, at least.

[–] quinziano 8 years ago

I think they just chose the actors and then they invented the story of the "extensive" surgery in order to justify the difference of height

[–] cassbtt 8 years ago

Well, I do think this is an irritant.

Sarah Snook was great, but there were alternatives. Somebody like Keira Knightley is a few inches taller, only two years older, and easily could have played "both sides of the coin".

But I do hear she's asking $15M per movie these days so... I guess you gotta work with what you can get.

[–] bkinsey5-1 8 years ago

Not to mention that procreating with one's self would never ever produce a genetically identical intersex offspring.

[–] carl_johnson-1 8 years ago

Proof?