MovieChat Forums > Source Code (2011) Discussion > To the people who say "It should've ende...

To the people who say "It should've ended at the frozen kiss scene"


You realise the plot doesn't work without the confirmation of alternate realities? Otherwise, Colter would not have been able to do stuff that Sean didn't do.

It's not about having a "happy Hollywood ending". The revelation is what ties the plot together.

That was the clever twist: the creators of the source code not knowing they were creating alternate realities and just assume the subject is reliving the same reality.

I saw this movie for the first time today and am surprised how few people understood this.

reply

What the scientists actually believe is happening is poorly established. Why do they dismiss the parallel theory so quickly while freely engaging in another idea that is even less believable?

reply

Because scientists in real life did and do the same?

They're fine believing in the Big Bang Theory but for the longest denied the multiverse as quantum quackery until they discovered a particle from a neighboring universe, even though for the Big Bang to have happened it would have required a cause -- and if our dimension at the time didn't exist, then nothing can't create something, which means an event from another dimension would have been required to spark the effect.

It's easy to believe that some scientists are both smart and stupid enough to believe some things and deny others, even while the evidence shows that some of these beliefs all tie-in to together.

reply

wait what?

what particle from a neighboring universe?
I was not informed. Link me or something

reply

They discovered neutrinos during the ANITA experiment that led them to believe in neighbouring unvierses:
http://journals.andromedapublisher.com/index.php/LHEP/article/view/67/31

This was also theorised by Turok, Boyle and Finn:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251301

However, some critics say this is unlikely, because there's not enough evidence to support that claim, so they believe the ANITA tests were faulty: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/evidence-parallel-universe/

The IceCube tests have proven to be more reliable, but don't necessarily contradict the ANITA research, it just hasn't been able to fully confirm it:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01737.pdf

Nevertheless, the IceCube tests have been making progress in making new neutrino discovers from extra-galactic sources: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adc9818

So the ANITA experiment findings haven't been nullified, but rather, newer and more discoverers are being made, which coincide with what was discovered with the James Webb telescope:
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/universe-age-older-impossible-galaxies-b2373678.html

Of course, there are those who adamantly believe that the Big Bang theory is well intact and there is no information that disrupts its current application to the known cosmos:
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-didnt-break-big-bang-explained

The caveat (and it's a big one) is that they're making the defence of the current cosmology theory by only judging the data on just four observed galaxies, and there are many more that have not been observed (yet) and a lot more discoveries being made that indicate the universe is far larger, complex, layered, and older than we thought.



reply

My caveat is WHY they choose to call it parallel universes when it is simply something 'different'. It's like finding a new varient of the color green: so what? It's just green shade, and doesn't mean there is other colors from a multiverse.
Or if I DREAM at night, I'm technically in an alternate universe/reality... except I'm not, but I THINK I am. It's just a term for something.
Then again, I don't think time dialation works like Einstein said because some atomic clocks got pushed about by gravity. Did atomic decay fully stop in every part of the clocks or did they just not tell correct time? :)

Thanks for the links. I will be reading them soon. This is the first I heard of "'PROVEN'" alternate reality. I don't buy it at all.

reply

This is the first I heard of "'PROVEN'" alternate reality. I don't buy it at all.


Well, it's technically not proven yet. They made some conclusions based on data that others don't believe is correct. Nevertheless, the verdict is still out and requires more testing (thankfully they are making more and newer discoveries with each new set of tests).

reply

That was a major plothole that ruined the movie.
Colter physically exists in the same universe / time as Goodwin and others. He is connected to a computer that simulates a world based on some parameters (the last 8 minutes of the deceased guy's memory) and translates that information in a format that Colter can comprehend. If Colter is separated from the computer, or if the computer is shot down, Colter cannot explore the simulated world.
Even if the computer didn't simulate a world, but instead bridged to a parallel universe, and Colter magically found a way to pass his conscience from the universe he exists physically to the other universe (which already is a very weak and lazy explanation), he would need to replace the computer and decode the information by itself to a format he could understand. If you don't get it: there are no geometric figures or music in the PC, but strings of data. Some graphical and io libraries are needed in order to understand what the computer is "saying". We know for sure that people in the movies cannot percieve other dimensions and, if their explanation is really that the computer bridged to other universe, then the whole reason Colter is able to percieve the other universe is because the computer translates it to him, to a format he can understand.

The core idea is good, but they didn't work too much on it. The movie could have been a lot better if they said that the guy Colter controls was the best option because he was the least damaged, or compatible with Colter (or any other reason) and the "whole picture" represents fragments of what they could retrive from a bunch of people. Of course, this way he couldn't find the bomb, or the vehicle so easily and the movie would have actually been interesting because he had to put the pieces together. Or he could have controlled one person at a time, gather information from each one's perspective and assemble the whole picture.
Another thing: why did they even need Colter?

How I took the ending: at the freeze kiss Colter died. What we see afterwards happened in his imagination. It was a necessary scene because it put a closure to protagonists' story, but it wasn't very well done*.

*read Mircea Eliade's novel, "With the gypsy girls" - that's how you do such a scene.

reply

Sorry but what you wrote seems to make little sense.
The first four sentences are ok, except that "computer simulation" might refer only to a part where he is in a capsule and is communicating with Goodwin (he is shown to have legs, feeling cold and trying to repair heating system of the capsule, while in reality he is only a torso with half a head). Then you wrote:
"Even if the computer didn't simulate a world, but instead bridged to a parallel universe, and Colter magically found a way to pass his conscience from the universe he exists physically to the other universe (which already is a very weak and lazy explanation), he would need to replace the computer and decode the information by itself to a format he could understand."

Well the "source code" is apparently computer program which records the last eight minutes of a person before they die and successfully transfers that information into another brain in the future, and thus creates a new reality for that person (Colter).
So the difference between the simulation and bridging to a parallel universe is irrelevant. Either way, Colter is sent back in space-time to the same point to a body of one of the victims of the train.
They also did tell him that there was a reason why particularly this person, their body and age were the most compatible with Colter's.

And finally, Colter didn't die after kiss, because the movie is like a FPS, if you remember in the beginning when Colter looks at mirror, and there is some other face in the reflection (Sean). So if he died at the kiss, the movie would either end or we would see Sean kissing Christine.

reply

Ok, it is necessary that the plot goes on otherwise the alternate reality topic would be lost - but after the frozen kiss you should actually see the real Sean and not Colter (like you see in the mirror at the first scene). Colter entered Sean's 8min brain flows and altered what happened in these 8 min. By this he created an alternate reality. So there is the reality train has exploded and the source code project applied and Colter - and the reality the train did not explode and Colter still waiting in his box for a case where the source code project can be testet.

reply

Too bad this thread petered out, because I think puff-j-ng hits the nail on the head.

The “happy ending” is a necessary confirmation that source code creates an alternate reality, which is the only way to explain Colter’s ability to explore places and do things that Sean never went or did.

I just read the original script (which was much weaker in my opinion), and the “happy ending” was written into it from the start.

And the reason Colter doesn’t get replaced by Sean at the end (besides the obvious sequel bait) is that there never WAS a “Sean” in any source code reality. If the alternate universes started when source code was run, then each universe started with Colter in Sean’s body. Sean himself never existed.


reply

Yeah I'm honestly unsure how people don't understand this detail, or that it couldn't possibly be a computer simulation based on what the movie presented.

A simulated world, no matter how sophisticated, wouldn't be able to give shit like the actual license plate number of a van in the real world or give any actual details about the bomber that Sean didn't already know or at least see in some way.

reply