MovieChat Forums > 11.22.63 (2016) Discussion > Why was the world in total ruins?

Why was the world in total ruins?

posted 9 years ago by crow_rat
130 replies | jump to latest

Yeah so I'm trying to figure out why saving JFK cause the destruction of what seemed to be all of America. Or at least that town.

[–] SeriousCow 9 years ago

On a building you can see something spray painted saying "CAPTAIN T----". The latter letters of the word are blocked by another building. I'm assuming this is a reference to another of Stephen King's books - The Stand.

In The Stand, a virus called "Captain Trips" wipes out the majority of the world's population. Only a small percentage are immune.

In 11.22.63, altered-Harry Dunning talks about a "flu". This is also supports the theory that Captain Trips wiped out the population.

EDIT: I should add that I haven't read the book of 11/22/63, so I may be completely wrong and the 'Captain Trips' appearance may be nothing more than an easter egg.

If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.

[–] pasymes 9 years ago

Blimey. You actually believe that?

[–] Hancockenstein 8 years ago

what's wrong with that theory? they didn't explain any post JFK-surviving events like the book did, and a building does say 'Captain Trips'.

Plot hole - Aspect of a film that is misunderstood or missed while using your smart phone.

[–] Hancockenstein 8 years ago

you missed a scene I guess, it shows a different building very close which has the full 'Captain Trips' on it.

Plot hole - Aspect of a film that is misunderstood or missed while using your smart phone.

[–] tsdemayo-162-986898 8 years ago

I have to agree with you on the Easter egg theory. It wasn't in the book, that I remember. Probably of Stephen Kings doing. He seems to like throwing a little tid-bit from previous books into movies, when he has a part directing.
I've been wanting to see 11/22/63, and was under the impression that it was a movie, but the only place I've been able to find it is on Amazon, and it says season # 1.... wait...what?? Oh, I hope they don't ruin it, like they did with Under The Dome! So.... if you liked this movie, the book is so-so much better! I have to say, it is one of my favorite King novels, but I think the best is Sleep Doctor. It's part two of The Shining. I have to add, if you like Stephen King, and like to read, you have to check out the books by his son, writing under the name "Joe Hill", he wrote Horns, that is now a movie, and a few other books.

[–] crow_rat 9 years ago

Okay I'm going to sound like a TOTAL idiot but how does saving the life of ONE man lead to nuclear war!?

What in the hell did JFK do to cause the world to go bombed. How does one little man who was supposedly a great president cause the world to go boom. In other words what are the steps he made to cause this? 0.0

I think I'm going to go watch the last episode again. I actually plan to watch it all again. I love binge watching.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdtony42 9 years ago

What in the hell did JFK do to cause the world to go bombed. How does one little man who was supposedly a great president cause the world to go boom. In other words what are the steps he made to cause this? 0.0

He may or may not have caused a nuclear war but ultimately it's irrelevant. The point is changing a major thing like preventing a presidential assassination could and would have an infinite number of unforeseen consequences.

Think of it like this. Say you went back and killed Hitler. Since he was history's biggest monster, killing him early should make the world an even better place. But when you get back, you find the present is now a place where non-whites are hunted and shot on sight since the world never learned from Hitlers atrocities.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

^^This^^.

Absolutely correct. Stalin really did want global domination, Hitler didn't. Hitler wanted pre-WWI German borders restored and parts of Russia, especially Ukraine.

If Hitler wasn't around to fight the Soviet Union, we would all be speaking Russian right now.

[–] cold2005 9 years ago

Have they made a time travel or alternate history movie or show based on THAT idea? Because that would make one hell of a good war/horror movie (if done right). Theyve done that before, the killing Hitler idea, or attempting it. But I dont recall anything where killing Hitler early-on was just the beginning, and then showing what possibilities may occur afterwards.

[–] rod-davies 9 years ago

Stephen Fry wrote a book with this topic called Making History. Hitler's existance was undone with some time travelling mischief where his father was made infertile with a modern male contraceptive pill. History unfolded very differently but not necessarily for the better - no more spoilers. Worth a read.

[–] crow_rat 9 years ago

Shame on you! Tell me the whole story instead of making me read the book!!!

( Seriously though I'll be checking this title out. Thanks :) )

[–] drstevew 9 years ago

There's also a book called "Time And Time Again" by Ben Elton where someone goes back in history to stop WW1.

[–] JasonRebourne 9 years ago

So go back and kill Hitler AND Stalin.

[–] TheTerminatorsky 9 years ago

No, French, as Napoleon won, and Europe became all in French empire..

[–] countingdown7 8 years ago

I'm glad to see not everyone is so absolutely ignorant of history.

[–] Franky88 (288) 5 years ago

Yeah maybe at the beginning,but then he would have wanted more,and more..

[–] Seoul_Seeker 9 years ago

You're both wrong. It was Mao.

[–] rulipax 9 years ago

I agree, Stalin was worst than Hitler, and no one talks about him.

[–] Justice68 8 years ago

Well duh they don't admit to Stalin being worse because of the jews, Bolshevism and revisionist history.

And Mao, asians and mongoloians made Stalin look like a pussy cat.

Any ways the real monster of our time, someone whom has irrevocably harmed our society and set us on a fundamentally different trajectory, is Mark Zuckerberg. When we're standing around the drinks machine at work, playing that game of 'if you could go back in time and kill someone at birth..' Everyone says Hitler, maybe you get Stalin. I drop Zuckerberg everytime...

[–] ml-125 9 years ago

Everyone wants to go back and kill Hitler. But they never think to go back and prevent the start of WORLD WAR ONE! That is what led to the depression in Germany and power vacuum which allowed Hitler to take over. It would also save MILLIONS of more lives.

[–] JasonRebourne 9 years ago

THIS

We kill everyone body in that assassination.

[–] pluckytotheend (263) 5 years ago

=b d=

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doomdodgers 8 years ago

I don't think anyone here realizes how weak the Soviet Union was pre-winter war vs Finland. They would have never been able to take over the world, because once they started declaring wars, the allies would have crushed them easily enough. Germany's problem was multi-front war, and the allies. Even if you forgive them the fact that they had one rifle for every five men in 1939, their war thinking was from fighting mostly civilians in the Russian civil war, and what they did, especially in Finland, was to send waves after waves of soldiers into machine gun nests, until they ran out of ammunition. That would simply have not worked against the allies. Don't forget that they were defeated, and badly, by the Polish cavalry, men with horses in 1921, and they learned nothing for the war against Finland. All they had was massive numbers and more tanks and planes. After the ass kicking they got in the Winter War, the Soviets finally started upgrading towards a more modern military in material and thinking, and they did it just in time too to defeat Hitler's Germany in world war two. So killing Hitler, might actually have worked. Sure there would probably have been different wars in Europe, but it would have most likely been the Soviets as the aggressors, but the wars would have been very much less destructive, and probably even excluded countries like USA and Japan, thus not making them world wars.

What i think happened in this story was, that with JFK nominated for a second term, the following presidents, now different people did something that triggered a nuclear war. As a long-time president JFK might have been so good, too good for America and the west, that it caused Soviet Union's downfall decades faster, but too fast, so that the extremist-communists still outnumbered the modern thinkers by a massive amount. The Soviets might have then had a similar to the 1991 uprising of the Soviet army, but successful, and this might have then escalated to invasion of West Germany, and thus, a nuclear war. Remember, that technologically the Soviets were at least on par with the west up until the late seventies or early eighties.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Magic93 9 years ago

Dude, it was the Cold War. The littlest misjudgment meant nuclear war. I think there were at least 3 instances where one single person at the controls prevented nuclear annihilation by making a quick decision. By changing something as significant as JFK, you throw a huge wrench into the precarious nature of history, at exactly the wrong time.

_____
That's putting it mildly, OO7

[–] action_on_deck 9 years ago

He may have not done anything to cause, but a different line of Presidents happened. Kennedy re elected in 64, George Wallace in 68, no mention of others after that. But anything could have happened in 72. So completly change the leadership of the United States during the Cold War, is there potential go things to go bad? Absolutely.

[–] leebutler195 9 years ago

Watch Red Dwarf Season 7 episode 1 it explains it very well

[–] JasonRebourne 9 years ago

Well, Harry Osborn meeting the Red Dwarf crew would take the story in an… err… interesting direction.

[–] charonme-1 9 years ago

the butterfly effect was mentioned several times in multiple episodes

[–] philoj 9 years ago

>What in the hell did JFK do to cause the world to go bombed. How does one little man who was supposedly a great president cause the world to go boom. In other words what are the steps he made to cause this?

I can't speak to what King had in mind in the story, but I can give you a real-world example:

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russian commanders in Cuba were given tactical nuclear missiles and orders to use them on American military if they attempt an invasion.

During the Crisis, there were standing orders that if nuclear weapons were used on US forces, to launch an immediate pre-emptive offensive attack on the Soviet Union.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff at this time were pushing for Kennedy to invade Cuba to take down the strategic missiles being installed there.

If President Kennedy had given the order to invade, Soviet commanders in Cuba would have attacked the invasion forces with tactical nuclear weapons, and there is a very, very strong chance that the US would have immediately launched a pre-emptive strategic strike against the USSR.

Instead, Kennedy sent a negotiator to reach out to the Soviets through back channels and arrange a deal - if the Soviet Union removed the missiles from Cuba, then the US would remove its recently installed Jupiter missiles from Turkey.

This was probably the closest the world has ever come to a deliberate nuclear war, and it was averted based on the decision made by exactly one man - President John F. Kennedy.

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

[–] TheTSCTH 9 years ago

I doubt he would have caused it himself, but the point of that plot twist is to show the "butterfly effect" from the branch of mathematics known as Chaos Theory.

Basically, the further back you go in a chain of 'cause and effect', the greater the impact and unpredictability will be of a change to the chain.
Or as the 1952 short story that first used this concept when talking about time travel put it, if the step on a butterfly a hundred years in the past, you could end up killing foxes in that area. But do the same in the Jurassic and humanity could be extinct.

So the series is basically showing us what happens when bumbling fools mess with things they don't understand.
After all, Al could have solved the mystery of JFK's murder and found the effects that it would have, in a week. He'd just need to shoot Oswald, travel back to the present, observe the effect (if nothing changes, Lee didn't do it), and then reset the timeline with a 5 second in and out of the wormhole.

[–] sauly151188 9 years ago

The point, I believe they make, is that you think saving one man or killing another (Hitler for example) would have an ultimately positive effect on the world but in actual fact it may not change much or potentially cause even worse things to happen.

From Jake's questions and Harry's responses, it seems like JFK had a fairly good term as president, there was no Vietnam War, RFK seemingly didn't die the way we know, and in unrelated events - 9/11 didn't happen?!? Not to mention the Kennedy family setting up shelter's and facilities for those effected by whatever disaster has happened (long after his presidency)

Everything is so much more complicated than that however, it's not just 1, 2, 3. Jake returns to a desolate landscape, bombed out streets and Harry living underground afraid of some virus. These events don't have much connection to the life of JFK (as much as we can know, from Jake's perspective), so Jake is left with the shock of "Oh, I just expected to come back and everything be peachy, but something's happened that I did not know was possible".

Like he did for much of the series, he then has to realise what's important, how can he find good in all of this.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBelette 8 years ago

How does one little man who was supposedly a great president cause the world to go boom. In other words what are the steps he made to cause this? 0.0

Don't underestimate him. He nearly succeeded in blowing the planet up once before during the Bay of Pigs incident. So don't be so sure.

[–] rubycalaberXX 8 years ago

He was trying to save JFK to stop the war in Vietnam, and if that never happened, maybe we're meant to think communism would have spread around the world to such an extent that the cold war went hot and the USSR bombed the *beep* out of the US.

[–] Atomicdog (6) a year ago

The sequence of events after even a minor change could be huge. Things would have definitely been much different over the next 50 years. Johnson would have never been president. Bobby and Richard would have battled it out and depending on how favorable JFK is at the end of his second term it may have been Bobby. Oh since the timeline is totally changed then Bobby likely does not get killed. Chances are after one term the economy would go through a recession as is normal but the people would vote against him in a reflection. Nixon may be out of the picture by then. That would be too many failures. Perhaps the governor of California would run against Bobby's election. And this is just looking at the president of the USA. The butterflies wings would no doubt cause a virtual infinite number of changes.

[–] sdtony42 9 years ago

Pretty untrue, he was a weak president at best, who did nothing but usher in Vietnam

That's debatable, but even a weak president is still the leader of the free world and as such will a mark on the world.

[–] chiaro_di_luna 9 years ago

My thoughts . . . we know Wallace was elected in 1968 . . . the simmering conservative, racist backlash (that saw some expression in Goldwater in 1964 in actual history) got stronger under two full Kennedy terms, and exploded - full-force - afterward, as the pendulum swung to the extreme right (chances are, a different candidate ran in 1964; many aspiring to the highest office will not run against a true incumbent president). With Wallace, an avowed and proud bigot, as president, stability was impossible, a race/class war broke out . . . and - from what little we see of Lisbon, Maine, in 2016, together with Harry's basic description - it seems the next forty-plus years did not go well.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

I disagree. The Civil Rights Bill was made into law in 1964 so the race issue would be a non-entity. My guess is that LBJ would have run against Wallace and lost in this new timeline.

The idea that Wallace could even win is absolutely absurd. Wallace only had the support of some of the southern states, that's it. Do you think he would have won in places like NY, MA, CA, or NJ. Not a chance. So, really, the entire scenario is laughable as is this moronic series.

[–] HikerBoy57 9 years ago

Without JFK's assassination, the Civil Rights Bill almost certainly would never have passed in 1964. LBJ played a huge role in that.

The war is not meant to be won... it is meant to be continuous.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yep and because of that bill, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing...all the big inner cities have turned into a cesspool of crime...thanks LBJ.

[–] khundadzenugzar 9 years ago

Because Democrats
They are today`s true evil, causing mass destruction with ultra-liberal views and handouts.

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

^^This^^.

[–] VanWhack 9 years ago

That's the stupidest *beep* thing I've ever heard, I hope you need a handout through no fault of your own some day and can't get one, then you'll understand why they're necessary.
You can' build a better life and become productive if you have absolutely nothing to start with, not to mention humans are basically rabid animals deep down, on the one hand there's you with the mentality of a dog who would rather rip it's sibling's throat out than share his steak even though there's plenty to go around, and on the other there's a desperate poor person who's slicing your throat because you wouldn't give up your wallet because it's what they feel they need to do to survive because there's no assistance in getting back on their feet. Don't diss the safety net, if you want to blame someone for mass destruction blame whichever one of your (probably conservative) leaders who funded Al Qeada and ISIS before both of them turned on you.

"I'm not saying I don't trust you, and I'm not saying I do, but I don't."

[–] SteverB 9 years ago

Been on this kick for almost eight years, have ya? That's the same amount of time it takes for most children to get a basic education. Did you miss that boat?

[–] sdtony42 9 years ago

Basuck Oturdma is history's biggest monster

Is that your clever way of saying Obama? That is just pathetic.

[–] Emergan 9 years ago

There sure are a bunch of butt-hurt libtards on this board.

*To all the typical masculinist scum on IMDB*
-"Your ridiculous and mens rights is nothing"

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

They're gonna a lot more butt-hurt when President Trump takes office.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mattfoley_motivational_s 9 years ago

Your message was approved by Hillary Clinton. Congratulations.

[–] jeffjohnston-13327 8 years ago

If things end up like the final episode no one will see it.

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist. I'll show myself out.

[–] Qrispy 9 years ago

Holy *beep* politics really do have a funny way of turning people into insufferable asshōles.

I know you've had a rough time.

[–] sirmildredpierce 9 years ago

How he handled the Cuban/Turkish missile crisis alone places him prominently in the history books. Some so-called "leaders" would have "pushed the button" instead.

You're saying Kennedy was great, he's saying Kennedy did nothing, but it sounds like you're saying he was great *because* he chose to do nothing!