MovieChat Forums > 11.22.63 (2016) Discussion > Good beginning but fell apart. Spoilers.

Good beginning but fell apart. Spoilers.

posted 8 years ago by parkerlgl
11 replies | jump to latest

1. How many times did Bill point a gun at Jake? If a man did that to me once, I'd either kill him or stay away from him forever. And Jake still thought he was a friend? Absurd. His character was just there to be an annoyance and it worked. His betrayal was dumb.

2. The crazy husband was also poorly done. Miscast. The acting was cringe worthy. Ruined the show.

3. Why bring Sadie along to fight a killer? Does she have secret skills we don't know about? A librarian vs a crazy homicidal marine w a rifle....gee, I wonder what will happen. There is absolutely no way she'll die.

4. Wasnt his plan to bring her to the future? He should have tried to be with her at least one more time. But I guess they ran out of episodes. The ending was very unsatisfying. The best ending would have been bringing her to the future.

5. The original time traveler never thought about killing Oswald just to see what would happen? Stupid.

[–] techiebug 8 years ago

for 1, 2, 3, 4: All are valid points. These are the things the show make differently from the book. And they turned out bad.

for 5: this involves some moral. They didn't want to kill Oswald in cold blood. They wanted to make sure he was the one killing Kennedy, and if he was indeed alone (As we know, there are tons of conspiracy theories). I know a trip back would reset everything. But still, killing is killing...

[–] aus_trinity 8 years ago

Point 5 is a mute point as testing if Oswald was the killer would have been simple. Kill him the day before Kennedy is due to be shot (or even before that) so that if it is a conspiracy, there's no time to get a new patsy, go back to the present, see what's changed and if it wasn't Oswald, just step back through the rabbit hole and re-set the timeline. Even killing Oswald in cold blood could be reversed if it turned out it wasn't him.

Either way there where way more issues with the show then that, especially the last episode. I haven't read the book, but went along for the ride with the show, enjoying it well enough, but the end was a load of BS. If Kennedy lived, served a second term I think it was said, then bombs happened (assume nuclear, it was never said, or who dropped them). Assuming the bombs where dropped in the late 60's, where did they come from? Kennedy had sorted Russia putting nucks in Cuba, I don't know much about military arms history, but am pretty sure that ICBM's and sub launched nucks where not around in the late 60's or early 70's, so it had to be by plane, and Russia was the only other nuclear power at the time (that I'm aware of, maybe China?). Either way, they had to fly them and radar had improved considerably by then, so the planes would be been spotted well out and fighters sent out to shoot them down.

Other big issue, if in the past Jack seemed to save Sadie from her ex and time seemed determined to have her die by some other means, why when Jack re-set the time line to be back to normal and looked up what happened to Sadie, she was still alive and well??

As I said, enjoyable enough to watch if not taken seriously, until they poop all over you in the last 20mins with an ending so poopy as to make me wish I hadn't watched it at all!!

[–] techiebug 8 years ago

Sadie is never destined to die. She is only destined to have her face cut. If the whole Kennedy mission didn't happen, she would still be alive. That's why she's still alive in the reset. The show changes here a bit. In the book, the old Sadie does have the scarface. The show changes a lot of little details, and they add up making the story very confusing.

[–] movienchill31 (222) a year ago

Sadie only dies because Jake keeps using the rabbit hole to be with her. Once she's left alone, she only ends up with the scar.

[–] WandererFromYs (1676) a year ago

Other big issue, if in the past Jack seemed to save Sadie from her ex and time seemed determined to have her die by some other means, why when Jack re-set the time line to be back to normal and looked up what happened to Sadie, she was still alive and well??

Sadie’s husband attacked her because of Jake. He didn’t accept “his wife” being in a new relationship in the first place, and then Jake set him off during the verbal altercation when he mentioned the clothes pin.

When you take Jake out of the timeline, she isn’t in a relationship. Maybe she doesn’t get into one until a much later time when the husband has had time to accept things. I’m guessing no one of her other boyfriend ever had a confrontation with her ex husband, or challenged him about the clothes pin.

[–] jrparz 8 years ago

1) Totally agree that Bill's character was an annoyance and as far as I'm concerned, useless; adding nothing to the story.

2) Didn't feel strongly one way or the other regarding the crazy husband, but did find it rather funny when instead of driving 30 miles to save Sadie and having Deeke help save her (like in the book)... all he had to do was run a few blocks to her house.

3) The book better explained why Sadie went along. Jake was in much worse condition in the book... and knew Sadie would follow him in her car (after finding him) if he didn't have her come along anyway.

4) I haven't gotten to the end in the book, but the mini-series did have a seen with Jake and the yellow card man - whereas he convinced her that no matter what he did, she would die anyway. Not saying it was true... just saying that Jake gave up, finally accepting he couldn't change what was supposed to happen. And if we were to speculate, I'm thinking those mysterious powers would have proved more dangerous to someone from the past going to the future than the other way around - because it would have changed what was whereas one could simply observe and not change anything if they were visiting the past.

5) Some things are done for entertainment value and aren't supposed to make sense.

[–] SkinlessPeen 8 years ago

I would have cut Sadie completely for the tv adaptation. She was not needed. EVERY story in history on tv/book/film does not need a love story.

It only detracted and lost the focus of our main character and what he was trying to do. Show would have rocked without the stupid love story.

[–] gary135r 8 years ago

I would have cut Sadie completely for the tv adaptation. She was not needed.

She was paramount to the story in the book, and Sarah Gadon's beauty was the only reason I stuck with the series. So yes, imo she was needed.

“Willoughby, sir? That’s Willoughby right outside. It’s July. It’s summer. It’s 1888.”

[–] kefaouma 8 years ago

If it were not for GOT, The Last Ship, The Walking Dead, Underground and a boatload of other good movies and shows, I would have quickly dismissed this show as another manifestation of Hollywood's running out of ideas!

11.22.63 is a bad movie. Had the actors stopped at producing a documentary, instead of making motion picture, they'd have gotten themselves some limelight they desperately seem to covet.

[–] Starchie28 8 years ago

A documentary? Is that a serious comment? Yeah, let's just take the entire story based on a successful King novel and turn it into another documentary on the Kennedy assassination.

Honestly, your comment is mean-spirited. You may not have liked the show, and you're entitled to your opinion. I thought it was a pretty good adaption of a book I enjoyed, but I never would consider that it was made because someone was trying to get more time in the spotlight.

[–] neuro 8 years ago

4. Wasnt his plan to bring her to the future? He should have tried to be with her at least one more time. But I guess they ran out of episodes. The ending was very unsatisfying. The best ending would have been bringing her to the future.

His plan was to bring Sadie back to the future, but she died. He did try to be with her at least one more time, but the Yellow Card Man persuaded him that interfering in her life would mean she would die; the Past pushing back wouldn't help things.

5. The original time traveler never thought about killing Oswald just to see what would happen? Stupid.

As many other posts here say, even if Al was cold-blooded enough to kill a man, reset-or-no, he would have had to wait from 1960 to 1962 (from 1958 in the book), as Oswald didn't return from the Soviet Union until then. Would you like to wait two years to kill someone, then go back and find it either hadn't worked, or had made things worse? Two years of your life, gone, for nothing. And you'd have to wait another two years to try again. That plot device ain't there for nothing, my friend.