MovieChat Forums > Happy Accidents (2001) Discussion > Plot question. NEED HELP! SPOILER ALER...

Plot question. NEED HELP! SPOILER ALERT!

posted 19 years ago by BringBackWriting
25 replies | jump to latest

SPOILER ALERT!
.
.
.
.
.
.

I loved this movie but do not understand one thing that really bugs me given how tight the movie was otherwise written. I do not understand how Sam got Ruby's name. Her name was not on the photograph. The word "accident" was on the photo though all he said he had to go on was that the antique store owner said that the lady dressed in black was likely from New York. Therefore all he had to go on was that the lady (Ruby) in the photo was likely from New York and he surmised that she died in an accident. We know that the word "accident" on the photo had nothing to do with an accident that killed Ruby yet he was lucky on that part of it. What doesn't make sense is how he found her name! He said he researched accident reports and thats how I suppose he found the "name" Christine DeLancey. Yet for him to find that "name" and the cabby's name he had to have also had Ruby's name. How else could he have searched the accident? What type of accident? Yet he tells Ruby that he just dropped in to NYC hoping to find her by her face alone ingrained in his memory. It doesn't make sense. Please help.

[–] mds1-2 18 years ago

Apparently, the magical accident database had ALL the info on Ruby's accident, including the time, location, and name of the driver. His story about dropping into NYC, hoping to find her was just a cover. He knew precisely where to find her.

How else could he have prevented her accident?

He did not search the database for HER, rather he was searching the database for accidents supposedly related to his sister's drowning (and Ruby's has nothing to do with this--a script problem) and he found Ruby.

Of course, the worst plot hole is that the picture of Ruby was taken at a beach party, at which Sam was present. Therefore, Sam would have known Ruby before he knew her.

[–] BringBackWriting 18 years ago

Thanks but I don't see how he could have found Ruby by researching his sister's accident either. Unless it was the aforementioned magical database. His hand and phrase on the back of the photo works for me. I just wish there was something more tangible in the photo for him to search for her identity to make it more believable.

[–] mds1-2 18 years ago

Well--You're being too logical. Of course, no database in reality could be that extensive, but that was the story!

He was researching "accidents" for his defense in his murder trial, and I realize that a traffic accident has nothing to do with a drowning, but this was just sloppy writing by Anderson.

I don't quite understand how you are fixated on this rather minor detail, that was actually explained in the film, but have no problem with him being at an event, 470 years in the past, at which her picture was taken, and THEN somehow noticing her image for the first time on the accident database.

Even if one accepts time travel, him being present at this beach party would mean that he knew her before he knew her, and is a horrible paradox. Moreover, it was absolutely unnecessary to the story!

Finally, the image of Ruby is far from captivating. Rent the video and see how crummy she looks in that freeze frame. Bad enough that a 36-year-old Tomei is playing the part of a 20-something, or her mother is played by an actress barely 12 years older than her.

Ironically, nothing here is an accident. These were all conscious decisions, and reflect Anderson's "cool" notion that he is not limited by mere conventions of plot, time, and logic. Similar problems occur in "The Machinist," as well.

Please remember that you are only exposed to these works for about two hours. The creators labor over them for perhaps months. Are we asking too much that some care be taken?

[–] BringBackWriting 18 years ago

"I don't quite understand how you are fixated on this rather minor detail, that was actually explained in the film, but have no problem with him being at an event, 470 years in the past, at which her picture was taken, and THEN somehow noticing her image for the first time on the accident database.

Even if one accepts time travel, him being present at this beach party would mean that he knew her before he knew her, and is a horrible paradox."

I suppose it's my turn to question why you have a problem with him being with her 470 earlier given the acceptance of time travel. Where you go wrong I believe is in your acceptance of Sam Deed's body alone as comprising as the "him" and "he". Sam's body did exist 470 years in the future and 470 years in the past. The difference between the two is the experiences he lived in both. The mind of Sam in the future knew nothing of Ruby until he looked at the photo, researched a database, had a bad mushroom etc. That Sam vanished to go back 470 years in the past. Future Sam was at that point lost to the world of 2470 and beyond. The Sam of the past retains the knowledge and experience of the Sam of the future, which means he doesn't know Ruby at all. How is that a "horrible paradox"? I realize Sam could have abandoned his search for Ruby upon being distracted by another 21st century vixen but that doesn't preclude his meeting Ruby and fulfilling the legacy of the photo.

I also agree that care should be taken when writing scripts. What would you have changed in the script to make the film more appealing?

"Finally, the image of Ruby is far from captivating. Rent the video and see how crummy she looks in that freeze frame. Bad enough that a 36-year-old Tomei is playing the part of a 20-something, or her mother is played by an actress barely 12 years older than her."

"No accounting for taste" I believe the phrase goes. What intriques each of us about someone else is personal. For whatever reason known only to Sam, Ruby did float his boat. I too found it difficult to believe her as a 20-something. That's why I viewed her as being a 30-something. Just knowing who A.M. Hall is would put her around 30. It also works with VO as the love interest. If she was written in as being in her early 20s then that was a stretch. She's a beautiful woman but pulls off 30 admirably but certainly not 20. I agree the casting of her mother was terrible. The actress was fine but not at all believable physically as the mother. I was hoping it was a plot device to get Sam to slip up by saying something embarrassing to the mother.

[–] mds1-2 18 years ago

OK--

You eased my mind on the paradox a bit--although most time travel stories are more careful about such encounters. (Where you interact with some key individual "before" you should.) If the photo would have had nothing to do with Sam when it was taken, it would have been a cleaner situation.

Pic would have been better--

*If it were shorter

*If ALL the guys except for Sam weren't SOOOO awful

*If Gretchen had more insight on relationships than "If the sex is good..." (That alone probably pegged them as 20-somethings)

If somehow Sam could have been in more danger from reprisals from the future, until someone from 2470 gets inspired by his great love, too

As to the casting, etc...

We can agree to disagree. Tomei did NOT look good in this pic, and seemed not to care about it either. This, too, is a pretense that is quite annoying, especially when her image has to be captivating through the ages. Compare to Diane Lane in "Must Love Dogs," whereby characters, and even some critics thought "Why should she have any trouble getting a guy?"

Notwithstanding her sheer dumb personality, she did not look good either. In fact, the 21-year-older Stockard Channing looked better.

Ditto Carrie Anne-Moss, who, in the last Matrix looked like Keanu Reeves' brother.

When did it become OK for leading young women in film to not look good, other than obvious choices such as Kate Winslet not being as pretty as DiCaprio in Titanic??

[–] BringBackWriting 18 years ago

I'm impressed with the ideas you've given to improve the film. You view the film with quite a discerning eye compared to my viewing. I agree with all your ideas for a better film except Sam being in danger. I think that is accomplished by his sickness that reverses time. You have a wicked sense of humor suggesting someone else traveling back with the hots for Ruby! That would sure add the element of intrigue.

I think Tomei looked quite hot a few times in the film. Otherwise it was simply depicting her casual life. As for being "captivating through the ages" again that's a matter of personal taste. That's all within Sam's head. Let's not discount the very real possibility that standards of beauty could differ in 2470. Besides the idea of being drawn to the likeness of a complete stranger in the distant past is not necessarily odd and has been used before as in SIT. Sam was also a lost soul in 2470 and the pic of Ruby and finding her became his new quest in life.

"When did it become OK for leading young women in film to not look good, other than obvious choices such as Kate Winslet not being as pretty as DiCaprio in Titanic??"

I suspect more films are trying to depict reality better these days. June Cleaver doing housework in her dress and pearls would be a laugher today. I suspect it was 50 years ago too. The girl next door can be a powerful attraction so perhaps filmmakers are trying to capture that sense of the familiar/approachable?

[–] mds1-2 18 years ago

This has become an interesting little thread.

June Cleaver comment is true, but off the mark here. Only reason to have plain Jane leading women is to appeal to female audience. (cf. popularity of Jill Clayburgh, Minnie Driver, etc.) This is all "high school" psychology, and it works.

If best-looking girl in school is running for homecoming queen, she will win if only the boys vote. If the girls also vote, the queen is NEVER the best-looking girl, rather she is the one who is slightly better than average, with a sweet personality. If the voting girls are exceptionally bitchy, it really will be the plainest candidate. You can take this one to the bank.

So, we can explain nearly everything wrong with this film because it is a chick flick...

"Feelings more important than reality"---age problems of several characters, plot problems, such as how Ruby is saved from her accident because of Sam's time sickness. (Why should THAT affect real time for everyone else?)

"Men suck"--the ex-files

Sam moves in with Ruby way sooner than reality--women in search of the perfect sex fantasy, cf. "Sex in the City"

And, in a perverse sort of way, "The Machinist" is a chick flick, also, for several of the same reasons.

[–] BringBackWriting 18 years ago

WOW! Kudos to you! I now see your point about the casting and attire of Tomei. I never considered that. I still think Tomei looked hot but then I'm a guy. I wonder if D'Onofrio was cast for the same reason? Or does the chick flick status render such notion null and void by definition? I appreciate your opinions and approach towards this thread. Thanks!

[–] vesta0 18 years ago

Maybe it's just me, but I actually don't think the accuracy of details of time travel and Sam's character is relevant to the real content of the movie. I found it to have a philosophical edge; an interesting take on a number of concepts, such as reality, hope, trust, relationships, and of course time. The impression that I got from the whole time-travel storyline was that it was almost entirely metaphorical in relation to the message/content of the movie.

[–] didshebuyit 18 years ago

i can totally see that.. the way every real relationship is so completely different and there are misunderstandings and we come from different places and have different families who affect us. and the relationship itself ending in love is an ideal.

[–] didshebuyit 18 years ago

" Just knowing who A.M. Hall is would put her around 30. "

pardon me, i'm 12 years younger than 30, and i've known who michael anthony hall is since i was a wee kid with a mother who loved the decade of her youth. so if i were in a movie talking about this, you would see this young 18 year old kid. that doesn't make me 30ish. weird assumption.

and did you see the back to the futures? certain events could cause someone's existence in the present (future: 2470AD) to have the set destiny of going back to 1999. in a continuum. the time ring.

[–] rainofwalrus 12 years ago

Even if one accepts time travel, him being present at this beach party would mean that he knew her before he knew her, and is a horrible paradox. Moreover, it was absolutely unnecessary to the story!

a) Self-consistency (re: Time Travel; multi-verse) suggests that the macro catalyst are always met--no matter how many micro-changes occur. And as such, Ruby's "Man Hand Photo" is the macro catalyst. Whether the "hand" in that photo is Sam or not is micro.

Expanding, the original photo that sends year2470-Sam back in time may display the hand of a different man entirely (micro change; catalyst met). Thusly, year2000-Sam has traveled back within the causal loop and supplanted the man with his own hand. Self-consistently.

Self-consistency also solves the Grandfather Paradox outright! Go back in time and slay your grandfather? No problem, wasn't your actual grandfather in the first place. Your grandmother boinked the mailman. Go back in time and slay him, too? Oh snap, you were secretly adopted.

Or...

b) The hands are always Sam's. But we are not witnessing the original Sam. No, instead, we're neck-deep in the unfolding causal loop. Maybe even the millionth iteration. So, from this perspective, we're too incredible far from the original catalyst to know if it was even a photo in the first place.

Expanding, Sam-0* travels back in time to escape some great failure/jail in his present (might not even be 2470), Sam-1** meddles with the past for the first time, changing the catalyst for Sam-2***'s jump backwards... Enter the audience, Sam-2,299,100 finds Ruby's photo with Sam-2,299,099's hand in it. And the movie (more or less) begins.

(* Sam-0 belongs to a reality where his own reality was not yet effected by his later temporal hijinks. The Prime Sam.)

(** Sam-1 is Sam-0 *after* the jump backwards in time. Instantly effected both himself and all Sam's not called Sam-0)

(*** Sam-2 is an entirely NEW Sam, born in ~2440, *after* Sam-0 jumped back. This is a Sam born within the reality Sam-1 existed centuries ago. Sam-2 will jump back, maybe, becoming Sam-3. And so on. Sam-1,420 is born 400 years later, sees Sam-1,419's hand and becomes Sam-1,421 after the jump back. ZERO is the first-timer. 1 is the first time-traveler. 2 is first-born after any time-travel. And from there; all EVEN# denote [born in the future] and all ODD# denote time-traveler.)

...

Paradox free.

messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious.

[–] AgentJrrd 18 years ago

Ok.... I dont know if you got the original answer you were looking for. But I actually just saw the movie...and loved it (I am a huge Marisa Tomei fan) and to answer your question about how he knew her name.... it wasnt from the photo or even from the accident article in his research...

He got her name because she left her book the first time they met and her name was on the her bookmark (or the peice of paper she was using as a book mark). He looked up her info in the yellow pages...and got her address.... the hand delivered the book.... tossing us all into this wonderful story.

[–] the-cait-one 18 years ago

Yeah, you're absolutey right XDD Sam explains it when she asks "How do you know my name?"

I just saw this movie today and loved it, but that's probably because I absolutely adore Vincent D'onfrio so much <3

[–] CoffeeTalk74 18 years ago

In discussing time anomalies people leave out the fact that there is at least 2 seperate paths the characters have taken already. Sam is intrigued with Ruby in the future when he hasn't met her yet because the photo is of her when she is at the height of being the most in love with him.

The exact same scenario takes place in Terminator 1 when 9 month pregnant Sarah Connor is taping herself trying to decide if she tell unborn John about his father Kyle who dies soon after impregnating her...She says "Should I tell you about your father? Will it affect your decision to send him? If you don't send him back then you can never be. God a person could go crazy thinking about this. I suppose I will tell you. I owe him that. Maybe it will help you to know that in the few hours we had together, we loved a life times worth."

So at that exact moment she is thinking of loving him, a boy snaps her photo. That is the photo that her 40 plus year old son in the future then gives to a 19 year old boy Kyle Reese. He memorizes every line of her face and he volunteers to cross time and meet the legendary Sarah the warrior who raised her son John to defeat the machines. He has no idea he is the father of the great war hero John who sent him back through time to save Sarah.

I love Happy Accident and Terminator and that particular storyline. There are other movies like this. But I've talked long enough.

PS I love sexxy Vince D also and was glad Ruby didnt look that great...
meaning: Ordinary people can find true love too.

[–] mittenkg 18 years ago

I know this thread is getting old but good lord, people! Ruby isn't hot? Sam isn't totally sexy? Marisa Tomei is at her hottest in this film and Vincent--wow--he has always had enormous sex appeal to me. What kind of actors/actresses do you guys find appealing? I'm really curious because I'm floored you guys don't all find Marisa super pretty in this film. Do you find her prettier in Cousin Vinny? (An unlikely coupling if I've ever seen one--a young Marisa and old, ugly Pesci--ugh!) So who do you all find attractive, if not Ruby?

[–] sarahjle 18 years ago

It's interesting how much attention was paid to the attractiveness of Vincent and Marisa. First of all, I am a chick, and I don't find Vincent to be THAT dreamy, and I think Marisa looks beautiful in the photo! Our personal opinions on such trivial details matter very little when it comes to the point of the movie.
I think the movie is about Sam, due to fate, finding the woman he is supposed to be with, and to him, she is beautiful.
It's also interesting that if it weren't for Sam existing to ruby in the first place, she would not have been at the intersection where the accident took place.
If he hadn't been there to have a relationship with her, she wouldn’t have had the picture, she wouldn’t have had the accident that led to an unprecedented case judgment which was in a database that contained her picture, which he would never have found, and he would have never been intrigued with her enough to save her. So it kind of seems like the whole point of the movie is that they were destined to be together, and although they were from different times, the times coexisted in such a way that their actions made them inseparable in time.

[–] TurningJapanese 18 years ago

You got it a little bit mixed up, he didn't search for her, the whole story about finding the Photo at a shop was a lie, as was explained in the movie.

He was trying to find legal information for his own trial about his sisters accident. In looking through historical accident information, looking for similar cases, he found the case about her accident, along with a picture of her (that was presumably provided by her friend after the accident). One can assume that since he found the accident report, it also included all her personal information.

Also, it seems you were confused as to what Christine DeLancey was, Christine and Delancey was the intersection she died at, which would also have been in the report he found.

It really does stand up surprisingly well to scrutiny, within the context of the story.

[–] lazur-2 18 years ago

The speech about not wanting to have to come back again every 470 years to keep trying to fix the problem implies to me that he may -have been- coming back many times -up until- this point, and perhaps accumulating information each time. I know it's a stretch, but if he didn't have memories of the previous visits, he wouldn't be able to make changes in his methods the next time, and wouldn't have the belief that he could eventually succeed due to those changes.

[–] LynxMatthews 18 years ago

The reason he knows her name is explained quite succinctly. He finds a book she has left behind at the park benches with her nametag in it.

[–] BringBackWriting 18 years ago

OK thanks. This movie still gives me a headache trying to make sense of it. Otherwise I really liked it.

[–] Rugby5513 18 years ago

no no no. He knew her name and stuff because he looked it up during his search on accidential death. He knew the name of the cab driver, but not the victim. Of course he knew her name before hand, and that explanation was on to not scare her off. If the first thing he said to her was, i know your name from a future data base, then she would not eventually love him.
Also about him having no memory's of his previous attempts is true. However, is he familiar witht the cycle loop theory, that he explains why it felt like deja vu. But it is because of him that she does die originially. If he was never there would she be so anxious to cross the street? Would the taxi driver be messing with his eye patch and not fully able to see if he didn't beat him up?? Would she ever have run out to find him, if he never came back in the past? This is a movie about fatalism. Did anyone else find it interesting, like in 12 monkeys (the best time travel movie), that her death is the result of his travel back in time, which he didn't even realize. It is a paradox.

[–] jabrookbank 18 years ago

"...her death is the result of his travel back in time, which he didn't even realize."

12 Monkeys- best time travel movie, for sure. If I remember right Madeline Stowe's character's life wasn't really in danger, the story rather hinged on Willis' char.'s death overlaping his own childhood as a result of his "backtravel". Very similar content but varied in scope and execution. Saw Happy Accidents on IFC after seeing The Machinist. Pleasantly surprised, a romantic comedy with an abbreviated "history of the future" up until 2470. There was slight cheese but not enough to pull me out of the plot, which I think says alot given the film's far fetched, absolutely paradoxical nature.

[–] sarahjle 18 years ago

Yeah! exactly!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]