john(45) and jane (45) meets at a bar...they go to past to meet jane (25)...they fall in love...jane(25) gets pregnant and give birth to jane (0) whom john(45) takes back to past to the orphanage. my question is simple:
SO ACCORDING TO THE MOVIE JANE GAVE BIRTH TO HERSELF?????? o.O
also
if somehow someone convince me about the above how was the first jane born????
Exactly! He's not his own grandpa, he's his own parents...both...that's probably how he/she became what it is in the first place. But you're right, the FIRST Jane being born would be the result of a temporal paradox. The whole plot would theoretically result in a crash of the space-time continuum.
Now the non-spoiler part...speaking as a genetics expert...there is an almost 100% chance Jane would have been sterile. When the sex chromosomes (the 23rd XX or XY) are not perfect, the patient is almost always sterile. And given Jane's condition...there's only one remotely possible explanation...OK, back to spoilers.
His/her ovaries must have been XX, while the testes were purely XY...which I don't think is possible, but it's the only way. But that raises the question...what are "its" somatic cells (rest of the body)?
His/her ovaries must have been XX, while the testes were purely XY...which I don't think is possible, but it's the only way. But that raises the question...what are "its" somatic cells (rest of the body)?
Brilliant words on here, i really enojy these types of films (primer, Looper, even enjoying the tearing apart of BTTF (happy BTTF day today!!) ) so thank you for these discussions, really puts it into context. althought i enjoy the concept, i do love the idea of how many loops has jane already done? this we have no idea surely, could be the 5th, 100th, can we determine this at all? one questions about the film though, who is 'robertson' i may have missed that
i do love the idea of how many loops has jane already done? this we have no idea surely, could be the 5th, 100th, can we determine this at all? one questions about the film though, who is 'robertson' i may have missed that
I'm a bit ropey, as im trying to remember all this, but if the barkeep was given this task to find the fizzlebomber, the bureau obviously wouldnt know that the person they're sending back is actually the bomber, or do they?
if they hadnt of given him this task more people would of died because he didnt intervene with his own bombs, so is this almost a loop to keep the best of two bad situations looping, all set by the bureau?
I'm a bit ropey, as im trying to remember all this, but if the barkeep was given this task to find the fizzlebomber, the bureau obviously wouldnt know that the person they're sending back is actually the bomber, or do they?
if they hadnt of given him this task more people would of died because he didnt intervene with his own bombs, so is this almost a loop to keep the best of two bad situations looping, all set by the bureau?
These may or may not help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf2CxZPl7KI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMO1eyMRuM
Enjoy these words, for one day they'll be gone... All of them.
theres a bit of blood trickling down my ears, but thanks!
share"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The movie is meant to make you ask yourself this question.
SO ACCORDING TO THE MOVIE JANE GAVE BIRTH TO HERSELF??????
there is no "first Jane". They're all the first Jane. take your pick. either one is right.
But I think the more relevant point would be the unavoidable in-breading issue. how is she avoiding that?
Well, she only has to avoid it once. :)
shareNo. See, the problem here is that she's not just her own mother.
She is also her own grandmother, great-grandmother, great-great-grandmother, and so on and on and on.
And her father is also her own grandfather, great-grandfather, and so on and so no, and so on.
Thats a lot of in-breading.
Again, it's just a single event. It's not compounded over time.
share
Again, it's just a single event. It's not compounded over time.
The Bureau never confirms the dates are changing, though. This is something Barkeep (past "mild pyschosis" at the point he makes the tape) perpetuates to himself. They may never feel the need to correct him, as if suits their Agenda to have him believe this.
share
The Bureau never confirms the dates are changing, though. This is something Barkeep (past "mild pyschosis" at the point he makes the tape) perpetuates to himself. They may never feel the need to correct him, as if suits their Agenda to have him believe this.
Yes, you brought that up before, and I pointed out that even knowing a fixed date (illegal jump), Fizzle was still not caught. So Fizzle not being caught isn't proof that the dates of The Bomb are changing.
We aren't shown Agent John's attempt at stopping the Big Bomb. From Barkeep, he apparently arrived either too late or too early, and just returned to the Bureau to get his next assignment.
One possibility is that the Bureau could be feeding him lies, telling him when he returns "Whoops, the date was changed". They could even send him off to the new date, which is again late or early. At some point they just call it off, leaving him with the impression the dates were changing, when they just danced around a fixed date they knew all along. It's also easy for Fizzle not to be caught if the Bureau doesn't want him to be.
Yet, we never see evidence the dates were changed (or anything, for that matter). No sets of clippings with different dates. Robertson never even comes out and says it (and, if he did, he could be lying). Only psychotic Barkeep says it, who heard it originally from himself the day he became an Agent.
The own act of stopping a crime before it happens is able to create a time-paradox.
To stop a crime, the agency needs to know when it happens, so it needs to happen. Then they go and stop it. If it never happened, because they stopped it, then they never knew it happened and when, so they can't send an agent to stop it.
If nobody goes to stop it, it happens. Then they know it happened and send an agent to stop it.
This paradox happened for each and every crime they tried to stop.
Now imagine that the agent who goes to stop a crime is the same person that, older, commits it. He know everything of his attempt, so he avoids himself. When the crime happens, they know when, so they feed that info to him. And so on.
Regardless if info is being feeded (info from a timeline is being fed into the next timeline, and each timeline has more info about current and past timelines than the one before it) or not, the criminal will always know better than the agent. And if that creates a paradox...
Then they go and stop it. If it never happened, because they stopped it, then they never knew it happened and when, so they can't send an agent to stop it.Well, all they need to know is that they sent an Agent, regardless of whether the crime occurs or not. share
rainofwalrus, I have a headache but you have a remarkable understanding of this kind of film. Amazing.
shareKind words, I am a surfer--as is my father.
I think navigating [probability spaces (flux)] comes naturally to surfers.
Waves upon waves, and waves after that.
Enjoy these words, for one day they'll be gone... All of them.
There is no in-breading at all!! They are not siblings, they are the exact same person.
This is time travel! He is going back to be with himself, there is no in-breading, it's more like making a clone, they both have the same DNA.
And that clone is not a copy of a copy of a copy etc... It's always a copy and original of the copy and original all at the same time because this is a special case of an hermaphrodite -- Time travel complications on top of hermaphrodite that clones itself complications.
Well, to me, one phrase in the movie was enough. Who came first... :"the Rooster".
The think with timetravel if one accepts time as something nonlinear, its happening all the time and forever. Well for timetravel to work it has to be so, doesnt it?
We, mere humans with our tiny brains will *never figure out which came first etc. Its as impossible as thinking about the universe's limits etc.
If I really had to choose one (which I really dont want to) I'd say the John that suddenly understands he's in love with Jane, at the bench. He's the rooster and the rest is an enigma.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature[...]It is the opium of the people
Simple really. It's from a Science fiction story so it cannot really happen. It's a cool film but totally built on an implausibility. Travelling back in time is not possible. Fundamental laws of physics and all that heavy stuff.Don't get hung up on the story as it makes no sense. Good watch though for those with an imagination.
You elected? No, but ive been nominated
john(45) and jane (45) meets at a bar...they go to past to meet jane (25)...they fall in love...jane(25) gets pregnant and give birth to jane (0) whom john(45) takes back to past to the orphanage.
SO ACCORDING TO THE MOVIE JANE GAVE BIRTH TO HERSELF??????
Padzuk, THANK YOU for being the only person who didn't try to wow us with your intelligence when answering the question by the original poster about the point of the movie!!! That is a sincere compliment of appreciation. Rather than talk about molecular biology, cloning, quantum physics, yada, yada, yada, you got to the point in the most cohesive manner than anyone who preceded you. Reading the threads that sprung from the original question reminded me of my law school days when every first year student thought their theory of case law and theory was correct when we were in study group. I finally left the study group (and performed significantly better) when I found their theories were typically incorrect and often muddied the waters of my own thinking with adamant analysis of the issues. Sometimes when one asks a question, we just need the answer in plain terms and don't need to be wowed by "expert" opinion. In looking at most of these responses, yours was the only one that responded to the original question in a logical yet UNDERSTANDABLE way to those of us just looking to understand a movie and not obtain scientific theoretical doctrine. If that were the case, the reasonable person wouldn't post their question on an IMDB board and would instead go to a site on quantum mechanics, etc. Nuff said.
share