Final revisions to my Theory, based on ongoing discussions with this board (in particular, I tip my hat to the critiques
-
arsdeviu — 12 years ago(March 06, 2014 05:07 PM)
Trying ,in some way, to share your enthuse. (told ya that I really enjoyed the movie) Triangle definitely has big entertainment factor. It has something that other movies don't. Could be the atmosphere, the tension, the suspenseCan't put my finger on it.
It happens only what is suppose to happen. That's the whimsical fatality! -
benettfreeman — 13 years ago(February 06, 2013 05:59 PM)
I think the incarnation you call 'Mean Jess' is the one we see at the end of the movie, who has been through a whole loop, and wants to go through the loop again in order to have the chance to save Tommy and avoid the car accident. She is not so much 'mean' as resolute. She goes about the killing very clinically, even apologising to them as she stabs them saying (paraphrased) "i just love my son".
Nice work on developing your theory but I'm sticking with my belief that its punishment by the gods and not time loops.
For me the seagull is the clearest sign of a mythological archetype basis. -
warrior-poet — 13 years ago(February 06, 2013 06:30 PM)
You're right about "mean" Jess, although she alternates personalities every other loop. The Jess iteration we follow is "nice", or I'd agree with your take as "less-resolute", and she'll become the "resolute" personality in the loop we see her about to enter due to the pattern that'll occur this time for her. She'll then fall overboard, and go back "nice". It should be noted that the "mean" designation as comes from Chris Smith. It isn't quite accurate, because she's not really mean. She's really just colder and more determined.
Nice work on developing your theory but I'm sticking with my belief that its punishment by the gods and not time loops.
There's absolutely no reason it can't be both. In fact, it works better if it is. Although, I don't see evidence of literal "punishment" by active gods. I see it as a "Jacob's Ladder" type of event, with her experiencing a dying nightmare, or in a more physical interpretation, with her dying in the car crash and the Ferryman (a.k.a. the cab driver) bringing her back to the land of the living, where she'll end up again because of her failure to keep her promise to pay him. My vote is that it's a combination of both interpretations, with the taxi driver being a modern day manifestation of the Ferryman archetype, with a very real Bermuda Triangle event, and very real time travel to the past. In the end, however, it's really just a matter of preference, and that's how Chris Smith intended it.
"I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo."
-
Spielburger — 13 years ago(February 06, 2013 06:59 PM)
For me the seagull is the clearest sign of a mythological archetype basis.
The seagull is - at least partly - an intentional reference to "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" (see FAQ). It was an important influence on the script, but one that gets a lot less recognition than, say, Sisyphus or "The Shining". At one point, Smith was considering making it a lot more obvious, such as having Jess come back to attend Tommy's wedding -
Neuronhead — 12 years ago(December 07, 2013 09:31 PM)
Mean Jess:
Mean Jess is simply the final Jess that we see, who has seen the whole loop.
There is actually just one Jess. The movie is just about her moving from a confused state of no understanding to understanding and thus becoming focused (and mean).
I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe -
JohnnyCheeto — 14 years ago(February 26, 2012 10:23 AM)
Wow, that's a very detailed plot summary. One of the things I love about this film is its ability to generate interesting conversation. I only have one question about the first part of your theory: How could they have heard the distress call that Sally made if they weren't already in the loop to begin with?
-
alesisqs61 — 14 years ago(February 29, 2012 02:02 AM)
Wellexactly.the movie's only fault within itself is that we are only watching the loop. Nothing within the movie is real. I think the movie could have chosen to be flawless (within it's own set of rules of course) if they had at least shown us what started the loop.
I loved the movie actually.. I just didn't love NOT knowing where the loop started. The OP states that she got on the boat and still heard the distress callnopenot possible. We simply do not know from watching the movie what REALLY happened to Jess and Tommywhich is a major flaw but it can be overlooked if you just ignore pre-loop time. The more I try to overlook it though, the more I think it's just a flawhard to say really.
If Jess always finds her keysthen they are looping. If she had not found them, but instead dropped them for the first time, and they didn't get a distress callETCwe'd at least have seen the very first loop but they chose not to go that route. They chose thealready happened route.
But.even in real-timesomething has to start off the loopin theory. The movie just doesn't go there at all and it's frustrating to see all that potential for answers. Perhaps the movie really needs a prequel to wrap everything up nicely. I'd welcome it. Why was the ocean liner there? Where'd the people go? Why is there food on it?
Certainly everything after the car crash could simply be a "coma" non stop dream for her to get Tommy back. This waythe boat and everything on it doesn't need a first loop in order to make sense. The rules are out the window if she just comatose or ina purgatory state.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
http://www.vimeo.com/1986276 -
Spielburger — 14 years ago(February 29, 2012 04:48 AM)
The movie just doesn't go there at all and it's frustrating to see all that potential for answers. Perhaps the movie really needs a prequel to wrap everything up nicely. I'd welcome it. Why was the ocean liner there? Where'd the people go? Why is there food on it?
It's pretty clear from what Christopher Smith has said since that he intended a never-ending loop with no clear start or end: yes, there are clues as to why Jess is suck in this cycle, but he keeps them deliberately vague. And yes, he knew that some viewers who were looking for straightforward answers and everything tied-up neatly would be frustrated.
From memory, his original outline for the film was along the lines of: crew of capsized yacht sees strange liner, with indistinct person on bridge. Crew board liner and get bumped-off one-by-one. Sole-surviving woman finds herself on the bridge, sees another (identical) yacht approach and realizes that she's the person she saw at the beginning; and so on, and so on. That's it: everything-else was developed from that to make it work as a film, but it was always intended to be an infinite loop.
My comment about a sequel has always been "It would be exactly the same as the first one." Or as Smith puts it: if you're having problems or think you've found a plot hole, just watch the film twice back-to-back -
warrior-poet — 14 years ago(February 29, 2012 12:56 PM)
Who says she necessarily always found her keys? That's a component of the pattern that could have developed over time. Or that they always heard Sally? Logically, the pattern started a bit differently and evolved into what we're shown, with the yin-yang type alternating pattern we see being the end result (although it could still be evolving for all we know, including the possibility of her escaping her self-inflicted looping fate).
Also bear in mind that each time they enter the what I'll call temporal "anomaly" they jump in time, they enter at a relative time that's different from the previous entry event (which is why a new group shows up each time instead of the same thing repeating, and is why things duplicate). It's a time fracture, if you will, that produces timelines that split off at the point of entry into the temporal anomaly, similar to the Hugh Everett Level III multiverse theory (although in this case it only occurs due to the "time fracture").
Because of how things are looping back in on itself, the first time Jess entered the "anomaly" she would have encountered future versions of herself. If she dropped the keys at some point during that first voyage, they might have floated around a while or sat somewhere unnoticed until a later loop, at which time she may have started dropping them like were shown.
The bottom line is that logically it's impossible for the pattern of every integrated loop to be identical from the starting point up to when we join in, and there's nothing in the film that requires every alternating loop within the overall cycle to be identical to the others. Therefore, what we see during the loop we follow or of the snippets of the other loops the loop we follow merges with, not only might be different but must be different, albeit if just slightly (the overall framework must be similar), from previous loops.
It's true the movie doesn't for the most part address the pre-loop trip that resulted in Jess getting thrown into the past that first time, but it doesn't need to, and is largely irrelevant to the story. The only evidence we have of that fateful first trip are the single set of keys and the events we see of the morning that would be similar (before she gets bashed in the head). We can't know the details, but we can deduce a general idea centered around her driving to the harbor instead of crashing.
As soon as Jess went back in time and killed her former self at the house she effectively erased that history and began rewriting a new history that involved trying to flee with Tommy and having the car crash. She also at that time created a close-time like curve that she will continue to perpetuate until at some point she chooses to not kill herself at the house (it's her only way out in a physical time travel interpretation), at which time the cycle starts all over (from our external perspective as an observer, while from her perspective she'd move on).
There's a little more about that particular subject here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/11187064/board/thread/193565705?d=193639324 &p=1#193639324
"I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo."
-
alesisqs61 — 14 years ago(March 02, 2012 12:26 AM)
It seems a bit of a cop out for the writer/director to say that he did everything based on that tiny outline and filled in gaps. There may not exactly be "plotholes" but there isn't any reason for discussion if the movie was flawlesswhich coming from the material we see could have been possible.
I don't buy that Jess would return to that horrible ship over and overlike you said Poetcertainly many things would change every time. Jess would get smarter and smarter and eventually figure out how to fix everything. I look at it like Back to the Future 2. Even in 1 trip they saw their former selfs but hid from them and knew what NOT to do. Maybe this has nothing to do with it I don't knowbut it's a time loop of sorts. Personally I think the movie was excellent. If we don't know what caused the loop, then we should have seen a finite end to the filmgood or bad. If it had ended with that car crashboom I think I'd have been happierthat waymaybe she had already gone on the ship 100 times to get off that boat.
I meanit seems something happens to her to reset the loop though. The first time WE see her board the ship she obviously seems clueless and that Jess keeps coming and coming and coming. The only Jess that gets smarter is the one that manages to stay alive ON the ship, not the one arriving.
I keep thinking about different outcomes likewhat if Jess just did nothing on the ship and kept everyone safe instead of killing them? What doesn't add up within the arc of more than 3 times is that there seems to always be 3 Jess's on board at all times so everything can't change even though it should.
The first time we see Jess doesn't mean the other Jess's aren't on boardwe just don't know that until later so how could things change? They can't or everything would unravelhowever we assume she should wise up eventuallybut it appears it's not possiblethis is why not having an end or at least a pre-loop lessens the quality of the film. My mom didn't even get it what-so-ever since it ended the way it dida casual movie goer. If it had either started different or ended different I think the movie may have been alot more popular.
I still don't get what Jess appeared after the car crash? Where did she come from? I think I someone say a different Jess crashed the car into them and she's the one that gets on the boatalthough I don't recall knowing this.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
http://www.vimeo.com/1986276 -
Spielburger — 14 years ago(March 02, 2012 05:04 AM)
It seems a bit of a cop out for the writer/director to say that he did everything based on that tiny outline and filled in gaps.
I'm not sure how it can be seen as a "cop out": that's how most scripts are written. The writer starts with a basic idea and then devlops it (creating characters, scenes, dialogue, sub-plots, etc) to make it work as a movie. In the case of "Triangle", what you refer to as "filling in gaps" took Christopher Smith around 4 years