MovieChat Forums > Happy Accidents (2001) Discussion > 2 INDISCREPANCIES

2 INDISCREPANCIES

posted 20 years ago by livescollide
51 replies | jump to latest

I loved this movie, and it is one of my favorites. however, i picked up on 2 things that are paradoxical.

1) sam revises his story later in the movie and tells ruby that he didn't find her picture in a curio shop, but rather on the internet while looking up precedents for accident cases. so if he found out about her online, where did he get the image that he drew over and over in his notebook? you see, the picture existed, but he never had access to it.

2) in breaking the causal loop and saving ruby he doomed every future self. let me explain. he found her by researching accident cases, right? so, if she was never killed, no law documenting her death would have been available to him in the future and he would never have known her again. by granting himself one lifetime of pleasure with her, he denies this same access to all of his future selves.

however, since the picture does exist, maybe it is possible that without finding her on the internet, he really would stumble accross her picture in a curio shop. but that's getting into parallel universi; i just think the movie would have held up better if they had kept the story the same about how he came to find out about her.

what do you think?

Vincent D'Onofrio is the best actor in the world!!!

[–] clearlyalec 18 years ago

all timelines coexist simultaneously. there's just as relevant a world in which i did NOT reply to this message, as the world in which i didn't see this movie, as the world in which i was never born, as the world in which life never developed on earth, as the world in whichi DID reply to this message.
sam deed, just as meg ford, left their timelines and went into other ones. so, the world in which ruby died still goes on, with sam deed going back to save her time and again, as did the one in which he came back and saved her, and lived on with her - like splicing.
at least that's how i'd like for it to be.

[–] bettylanguage47 18 years ago

does he say internet?? i don't remember any reference to "online" or "internet". and he did say that you can't bring non-carbon based items into the past--which means he found the physical photo (that, and the reference to"happy accidents" means that he found the actual photo). since he found the picture while researching legal precedent, this conjures up images of him in an old library in the future...anyone who's had to research legal precedent knows that sometimes, you have to go a long way back in some pretty dusty old books.

if they'd stuck with finding the picture in a curio shop,the 1st version, then the whole issue of ruby's impending death would not have come into play--sam couldn't tell ruby that right off the bat...he had to wait. and breaking the causal chain wouldn't have been an issue--ruby had to have died.

the issue of the closed time loop, etc...is an issue-but not with the movie. while there are discussions of parallel universes, the multiple phone calls to his back-story father, his need to break the causal chain, etc...this is always the issue with time travel ideas-they don't make sense to our linear brains. but i don't think that's an "indescrepancie" in the movie...it's the core problem with time travel itself.

i think brad anderson did a great job of addressing these concerns of time travel without getting too heavily involved in the real issues--suspend your disbelief and enjoy one of the best movies made in a long time.

[–] pinky_monero 18 years ago

I looooove this movie!!!
I just watched it on dvd with the commentary with brad anderson and vince d turned on - great insights!

Firstly i want to comment on the "fact" that he didn't find the photo in reality - just on the database. I don't think that we can take this as the actual truth of how sam found her - just because it is the last explaination he gives in the movie. Maybe he found it some other way that we can't even imagine as reality today, and so he is telling ruby a lie because she couldn't even comprehend the reality or isn't ready for it. Maybe if the movie kept running we would hear a different explanation from sam as ruby becomes more open to receiving information about the future.

There is lots of talk about parallel universes. In the directors commentary brad anderson explains the ending as the moment when cheeseman kicks in. You see the accident as it would have happened, then it backtracks and sam and ruby's emotional energy takes over - cheesemans theory - and it is enough to prevent the accident. Therefore it would create a parallel universe.

I've watched this movie at least 20 times - one of my favs - yay!!!

[–] gsybe 11 years ago

He made up the story about seeing the photo in a store so she wouldn't ask questions like "Why was my picture on the internet in a database?", forcing him to either make up a lie, or tell the truth about her death.

That her picture was in some thrift shop hundreds of years in the future isn't going to lead to as many questions.

[–] jims_kid 14 years ago

Aren't the multiple phone calls to the dad her? She's reliving the same thing over and over until he saves her. So wouldn't that be her?

Or is that the "dad's" cover story when he blows the conversation with Ruby?

[–] rainofwalrus 12 years ago

Cover-story. The "dad" was a backjacker, too. Had to be, no way to provide temporal cover-ups in real-time without breaking protocol (e.g. hiring a non-prescient local from the year 2000 to perpetuate the cover.)

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] mikecampbellart 12 years ago

Does anyone know the name of the song that plays at the end of the movie while they are taking a picture on the beach? it is a short flute and xylephone song before the credits roll and the "dirty happy ending" song plays.
Please any help, it is the most beautiful song.

[–] rainofwalrus 12 years ago

1) sam revises his story later in the movie and tells ruby that he didn't find her picture in a curio shop, but rather on the internet while looking up precedents for accident cases. so if he found out about her online, where did he get the image that he drew over and over in his notebook? you see, the picture existed, but he never had access to it.

Or... truth/lie overlap throughout the temporal hijinks. There is so much subterfuge at play that it's hard to give SAM's statements any weight.

Quantum Uncertainty already behaves awkwardly in our current monotubular perception of the passage of time; the 4D undulating snake-model. But in the 5D passage of time, viewed from a macro (godlike) perception, your self(s) are an overlapping cosmic fabric and not a single snake.

It's wise to note that 3D space didn't get folded by SAM (any backjacker); 3D has always been folded over itself. In 5D space-time folding, there are no catalyst. NONE. Cause and Effect, like Gravity or Water, don't exist in the 5th dimension.

2) in breaking the causal loop and saving ruby he doomed every future self. let me explain. he found her by researching accident cases, right? so, if she was never killed, no law documenting her death would have been available to him in the future and he would never have known her again. by granting himself one lifetime of pleasure with her, he denies this same access to all of his future selves.

Or... the loop is not, nor can ever be broken. It's simply smoke-n-mirrors. Every reality wherein it appears a traveler is "breaking the loop (changing the past)" is going through predestined motions that ALWAYS occur in this particular branch. And if there are no catalyst in the 5th dimension, then ALL branches (Ad infinitum) coexist.

That means that the photo sends Sam back *AND* also kills Ruby. And as attempts are made to save her, Sam must visit near-neighboring timeline(realities) where the photo actually exists. The further you move (5th Dimension) from your core reality, the less likely there is any photo at all, and communicating with Ruby (if she exists) would be like starting completely from scratch.

It's like rings in a tree.

The nearest neighboring rings are nearly identical to each other, but as you move further away from nearest neighbors (1st and 2nd dimension) you're presented with rings that look nothing like the ring you started observing. Ignoring size, of course, which is an illusion of the 3rd dimension anyway.

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] minhal92 12 years ago

Yeah its extremely hard to make a time traveling movie without time traveling paradox's.. Twelve Monkey's probably does it the best, Primer also does well but I wouldn't expect that from a Romance Comedy Sci-Fi so I'm okay with it :)

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Good Point. I've spent hours trying to figure out the time the time travel issues in the "Terminator" series. I keep coming back to the fact that its a "chicken or egg"? paradox. At least this film gives some interesting perspectives and issues to consider. Unlike "Star Trek" and other Sci Fi whichs ignore the paradoxs of time travel and take the issue for granted.

The fact is that while we can conjure the notion of time travel (and inter-stellar space travel for that matter) in our imaginations, these things are innately paradoxical. It is likely that Humanity will experience an extinction event (either natural of self-inflicted) long before we develop the technology to even begin to approach these issues. That sounds cynical, but it seems a mathematical certainty.

[–] gsybe 11 years ago

1) She's holding the photograph when she crosses the street and drops it when she's hit by the cab. So it would have been something that might have been included in a story about the accident. A nice photograph of the victim.

2) By breaking the chain, he created a new timeline/new universe ultimately, in which ruby does not die. Anyway, it's impossible, so who cares??

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]