The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Cafe Society

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-28-2002, 10:34 AM
CyberPundit CyberPundit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Does Minority Report have a trick ending?(spoiler of course)

OK this idea was brought up in another thread by zuma but I really wanted to canvas more opinions on this since it's an important issue in evaluating the quality of the movie. I also heard a guest on NPR make the same suggestion a couple of days ago .

What is the trick ending?
After Anderton is put away the guard says something like "I heard you live your fantasy life in your mind" IMMEDIATELY afterwards the tone of the film changes completely and suddenly becomes this feel-good murder mystery where the wife manages to catch the villain, implausibly rescues her husband who then proceeds to stage a theatrical confrontation which ends with the villain killing himself and then everyone lives happily ever afterwards.

It doesn't really fit with the rest of the move unless we are in fact seeing Anderton's fantasy. Edelstein of Slate wrote that he couldn't believe that the same writers who wrote the first two hours wrote the last twenty minutes. Isn't it likely that the writers were in fact deliberately doing this?

One other semi-clue. I think I read that Spielberg was asked about the feel-good endings in his movies; he defended himself and said something like "I don't think people will complain about this in Minority Report" But taken at face value, Minority Report has the ultimate feel-good ending and surely Spielberg would know this.

If the ending is in fact a trick then it changes my evaluation of the movie quite a bit. My first thought after watching it ,like many others,was "good movie,pity about the ending". The trick ending OTOH would be a brilliantly satisfying way of ending the film and would IMO raise it to the level of a masterpiece.
Of course the filmmakers should have been a little less subtle about it since it flew over most of our heads (including mine).
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-28-2002, 11:28 AM
Tretiak Tretiak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
That would make it remarkably similar in structure to [i]A.I.[/i, but I think you are right. One thing is when Burgess and Anderton are talking on their little phones at the end they have this slightly synthesized phone voice, which is appropriate. But then when they are close to each other and Anderton takes off his phone, they still have those voices, which makes it seem not real.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-28-2002, 12:10 PM
CyberPundit CyberPundit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
*Sigh* now you have spoiled AI for me. The same thing happened in the other thread where someone mentioned that the trick ending was similiar to movie XYZ. So please, everyone, no spoilers for other movies especially recent ones.

Good point about the voices, though I didn't notice it myself. I did find it implausible that Anderton would make it all the way to a personal face-off with Burgess.

The more I think of it the more I am sure it is a trick ending.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-28-2002, 12:35 PM
Daniel Daniel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I don't think it is a trick ending in that way, mainly b/c right from the beginning it was stated that the PreCrime system was already in jeopardy (it was limited to a specific jurisdiction, and could be eliminated in an upcoming majority vote). Its dismantlement was set up from the beginning.

Also, what's the best way to have a surprise ending in a movie based on a story that was published decades ago? Change it. The ending is pretty much the opposite of the story it's based on, so it couldn't be figured out by fans of the author.

I think it was in there as a possibility, but not a certainty. Kind of like wondering if Deckard is a Replicant. Saying that the end was definitely a fantasy is still a big stretch, in my mind.

But the tone of the movie changed because for once, people started believing Anderton. He'd left enough of a trail that many of the other characters were able to start figuring out what was going on. Just because he was the underdog the whole movie doesn't mean he can't still win in the end.
__________________
"I'm just too much for human existence -- I should be animated."
--Wayne Knight
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-28-2002, 12:43 PM
lenin lenin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
I always thought the gaurd was saying you just live your life over again, not a fantasy life.

In my mind it didn't change immediately.. You still had the ominous evil theme during the conversation with what's-his-name, the guy who used to run the Precrime. It's not until the wife barges in with a gun does it change.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-28-2002, 01:07 PM
LifeWillFall LifeWillFall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
the thing that leads me to believe it's not a trick ending is that precrime is taken off line at the end but I'm under the impression that even after he finds out about minority reports he still believes in the system so why in his fantasy would it be shut down, wouldn't his fantasy be to go back to work? then again he did change the murder he committed because he knew of the future so maybe that convinced him that the future is not so certain.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-28-2002, 01:44 PM
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
awsome! one more movie i don't have to pay to see!
__________________
Reduce your Carbon Footprint: Kill yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-28-2002, 03:06 PM
HelloKitty HelloKitty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by gatopescado
awsome! one more movie i don't have to pay to see!
gatopescado, believe me, the description of the plot and seemingly knowing the ending from the spoilers posted should NOT dissuade you from seeing the movie. You will not be disappointed!!

and, CyberPundit, I have seen both movies and they could not be farther apart in plot or mood. I don't think these spoilers have done anything to take away from AI. I supposed I should say that I really didn't like AI at all, but I loved Minority Report. (NOT just because Tom Cruise was in it, either!!) :-)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-28-2002, 03:33 PM
bafaa bafaa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
I'm leaning towards the ending being real. If he's living out a fantasy why didn't he fantasize that he finally finds his son, alive and well?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-28-2002, 03:38 PM
Tretiak Tretiak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Yeah, please don't take my comparison to A.I. to mean the plots are similar. That is not the case at all. Believe me, I have given away nothing in A.I.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-28-2002, 09:30 PM
CyberPundit CyberPundit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
I think that Daniel may be right that the filmmakers only want to suggest the fantasy ending as a possibility like in Blade Runner. Otherwise they would have been more obvious about it. An ambiguous ending is still a lot richer than the straight-up feel-good ending that most of us thought it was.

As for why the fantasy doesn't include the son returning perhaps Anderton's mind is going through possibilities which he can realistically hope for. And obviously cinematically a live son would have been way over the top. I suspect that the filmakers were trying make the ending just feel-good enough so that we aren't sure whether it's real or not without making it completely obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-29-2002, 12:29 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
My own take was That Agatha was not describing an alternative future to Anderton and his wife: but the future history of a new son. But I think the movie does indeed have an ambiguous ending.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-30-2002, 07:12 PM
ShibbOleth ShibbOleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Just saw the film. If Spielberg had wanted to change his rep he would have ended it just as Anderton was placed in lockup. But I imagine that the studio would demand otherwise. The film was certainly dark, although I half expected a little roboruxpin to pop in at any moment. There was certainly a lot of product promo going on throughout the film but it's tough to imagine how they could do many tie-ins outside the theater.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-30-2002, 10:06 PM
CnoteChris CnoteChris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty
gatopescado, believe me, the description of the plot and seemingly knowing the ending from the spoilers posted should NOT dissuade you from seeing the movie. You will not be disappointed!!
Right. Take me for instance. I saw the movie and I'm totally clueless as to what these guys are talking about right now. It's as if we watched two different movies.

Besides, how much more of warning do you need that the plot and/or ending of the movie are going to be discussed at length? You opened the damn thread with plenty of warning.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-01-2002, 07:30 AM
Geek Mecha Geek Mecha is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quick question-- did the Precogs not foresee Agent Witwer's murder? It shouldn't have mattered that in the hour or so preceding it Agatha wasn't with the the other two-- they said in the beginning that the Precogs can see murders days in advance. And it wasn't a crime of passion, so it should have been foreseen just like Leo Crow's murder. I mean, it's 5:30am and consequently I can't figure out what difference it would have made for Anderton, but it would have made some difference in the outcome, right?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-01-2002, 08:03 AM
Algernon Algernon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,440
Quote:
Originally posted by AudreyK
Quick question-- did the Precogs not foresee Agent Witwer's murder? It shouldn't have mattered that in the hour or so preceding it Agatha wasn't with the the other two-- they said in the beginning that the Precogs can see murders days in advance. And it wasn't a crime of passion, so it should have been foreseen just like Leo Crow's murder.
AudreyK, I believe the answer is that the Precogs can only foresee premeditated crimes days in advance. While you can argue that Witwer's murder was not a crime of passion per se, it certainly wasn't premeditated. Not until Witwer implicated the-old-guy-who-I-can't-remember-his-name did the-old-guy decide he was going to shoot him.


I have another question for the Teeming Millions. I must not have been paying close enough attention at this, but then neither was my daughter because we've been puzzled by this ever since we left the theater...

... when John (Tom Cruise) finally does shoot Leo Crow, what exactly happens? First he decides not to shoot Leo and reads him his rights. Then Leo expresses his disappointment that he's not going to get shot because "they" will take care of his family. Leo grabs the gun, but John talks him into releasing his grip on the gun.

Then the gun goes off? And John is standing there with his arm out holding the smoking gun. For the life of me, we can't remember exactly what transpired here to cause John to shoot Leo, even though he had chosen not to shoot him.

Help?
__________________
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana." (Groucho Marx; but also used to test a language recognition algorithm)
"The essential is invisible to the eye." (The Little Prince)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-01-2002, 09:07 AM
tanstaafl tanstaafl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: ATL
Posts: 3,111
I thought Crow grabbed Anderton's gun and jerked it towards himself, causing it to fire.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-01-2002, 09:18 AM
Algernon Algernon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,440
tanstaafl, that was my response to my daughter when she asked me after the movie. But her follow-up was "then why was Anderton standing there, arm outstretched and sighting down the barrel of the gun at eye level?"

I didn't have an answer to that logical question.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-01-2002, 10:13 AM
Boobka Boobka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
I think the change in tone of the movie was due to the fact at the point where it became a murder mystery someone started making "stuff" up and no longer following the plot of the original story, hence the diffrent tones.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-01-2002, 10:50 PM
Geek Mecha Geek Mecha is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Never mind, I just saw the flaw in my reasoning. My understanding is that the precogs could see all murders, and the nature of murder only affected how much of time ahead of time the murder was foreseen. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Unplanned murders are foreseen with the least amount of warning time-- I think in the Marks case they had about 15 minutes.

With regards to Witwer, when Lamar killed him, Agatha had been away from the twins for at least that long, thus unable to help the twins see Witwer's impending murder.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-02-2002, 07:42 AM
majinborg majinborg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
As best I can remember from seeing the movie last night, the guard says that you live out your dreams when he puts Anderton with the other criminals. The fact that Anderton was a very realistic and practical person would not, IMHO, have stopped him from living the dream of never having lost his son in the first place. Especially since we saw him reliving experiences with his son when he was watching the data files in his apartment; he also relived the actual loss of his son when he was sleeping in the eye-replacement-guy's apartment. Finally, his wife actually left him because everything he did reminded her of Sean. In other words: after Anderton lost Sean, he became the living embodiment of a desire to find him again. Since that's not what we saw Anderton doing after he was put away, then I'm convinced he wasn't living out a dream.
__________________
Elevators ought to have a button that says "Go Faster".

I think if the Coyote ever caught the Roadrunner, the Universe would end. Same thing with Sylvester and Tweety, and Tom & Jerry.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-02-2002, 07:43 AM
majinborg majinborg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
By the way, I think Minority Report is an incredibly good movie.
__________________
Elevators ought to have a button that says "Go Faster".

I think if the Coyote ever caught the Roadrunner, the Universe would end. Same thing with Sylvester and Tweety, and Tom & Jerry.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-02-2002, 11:17 AM
Cat Fight Cat Fight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
**other movie spoiler**

Wow, I considered the possibility of a Mulholland Drive- type ending, but only in passing, as a joke, when Witwer discovers whatshisface has kidnapped a pre cog and he (Witwer) makes the silliest gesture of all time- a mean ol' scowl and a fist punching his palm.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-02-2002, 01:09 PM
CyberPundit CyberPundit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
"at the point where it became a murder mystery someone started making "stuff" up and no longer following the plot of the original story, hence the diffrent tones."
I haven't read the original story but I believe the movie departs from it regularly and not just the last 20 minutes .

About the agent killed by Burgess and why the precogs dont spot it, I thought it was because the location was outside the range of the pre-cogs but maybe I misheard what Burgess said ( he does give an explanation before he shoots)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-02-2002, 01:16 PM
LiquidLobotomy LiquidLobotomy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
** More Spoilers **

I think a lot of people here are trying to make a leap of faith based on the fact that Vanilla Sky (also starring Tom Cruise) was all about Cruise creating an alternate reality. It's tempting to assume that since Cruise did it in last year's movie that this year's movie might have a reference to it (and yes I know that Cruise didn't write/direct/have anything to do with the plot- I'm just trying to make a point.)

If Cruise/John really did "alter" his reality there would have been no change of perspective (from Cruise to his wife.)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-02-2002, 01:36 PM
Algernon Algernon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,440
Quote:
Originally posted by CyberPundit
About the agent killed by Burgess and why the precogs dont spot it, I thought it was because the location was outside the range of the pre-cogs but maybe I misheard what Burgess said ( he does give an explanation before he shoots)
Somewhere later in the movie someone talks about a 200 mile limit to the precog's range, but I don't believe that had anything to do with Witwer's murder.

My understanding is exactly as AudreyK describes in her most recent post, namely that "the precogs could see all murders, and the nature of murder only affected how much of time ahead of time the murder was foreseen. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Unplanned murders are foreseen with the least amount of warning time. With regards to Witwer, when Lamar killed him, Agatha had been away from the twins for at least that long, thus unable to help the twins see Witwer's impending murder."

Her explanation is more clear than my feeble attempt earlier in the thread.

But could someone please confirm tanstaafl's explanation of exactly what happened to cause Anderton to shoot Crowe? Or provide an alternative description? I'm still puzzled.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-02-2002, 02:54 PM
Algernon Algernon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,440
Oops. Forgot one thing I wanted to mention about Witwer's murder. Agatha, since she was the most powerful precog, may have indeed forseen Witwer's murder (the movie doesn't indicate one way or the other). However, she was in no position to do anything about it even if she was so inclined.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-02-2002, 07:01 PM
TheeGrumpy TheeGrumpy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK USA
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally posted by majinborg
The fact that Anderton was a very realistic and practical person would not, IMHO, have stopped him from living the dream of never having lost his son in the first place... Since that's not what we saw Anderton doing after he was put away, then I'm convinced he wasn't living out a dream.
Excellent point. And it wouldn't have been too difficult to have the son reappear at the ending. A little soap-operatic, but still within the bounds of the narrative. After all, we never see confirmation that the son was killed.

I haven't seen Vanilla Sky but I know that the Last Act Dream was used before in Star Trek: Generations. Unless you're someone who believes that somehow Picard used the Nexus to transport himself out of the Nexus and prevented himself from ever going inside. Because that's just silly.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-05-2002, 02:59 PM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally posted by Algernon
Somewhere later in the movie someone talks about a 200 mile limit to the precog's range...
This brings up another problem. The plan was for the entire system to eventually go national. If the precogs have a limited range, how could it possibly go national? Also, what happens after the precogs die? Since their original creation was accidental it doesn't seem like they could be easily replaced nor could they be replicated to monitor other parts of the country.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-05-2002, 04:30 PM
Mandos Mandos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Just because he did not reunite with his son does not mean that it wasn't a fantasy. The only way that would be true is if he didn't know in the back of his mind that his son was dead. He thought of what he would do to the man who took and killed his son. He thought of vengeance. Now, here is where the problem really lies. Why didn't he avenge his son's death? I don't know. It must also be noted that he did get to experience the raising of a child again. His wife is pregnant towards the end of the movie. This might be his realistic "replacement" of his son in the fantasy. I don't know. Perhaps it's a fantasy, perhaps it isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-05-2002, 05:02 PM
BabaBooey BabaBooey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
I think that if they would have shown the son come back at the end, the movie would have been ruined with the feel-goodedness (is that a word) that Spielberg seems to enjoy putting in his movies. I actually think the film's showing the precogs and Cruise/wife happy at the end was totally unecessary; however, I think the already very good movie could have been one of my favorite of all time if they bring the son back at the end, show the happy precogs, then for the last shot of the film, show a closeup of Cruise's face slowly backing up and morphing into a shot of Cruise still in prison.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-05-2002, 07:39 PM
ianzin ianzin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Near London, UK.
Posts: 4,186
I don't think it's a trick ending, or that the makers even intended this as a possibility. I'd say it's more accurate to say that the final act is none-too-expertly bolted on to what has gone before, but does resolve the various plot threads satisfactorily if you don't mind neat, happy endings.

My question concerns Tom Cruise's meeting with Mr. Scary Illicit Eye Surgeon. Mr SIES gives Tom a magic face-changing thing which Tom later uses when he tries to break in to the Precog Temple. First question: why bother with this magic face-changer since it doesn't change his face much at all and he is still recognisably Tom Cruise (or TC's character). The Temple nerd who attends the precogs recognises him easily. Second question, does Mr SIES actually say that the effects are short-lived and his face will revert to normal soon? I don't recall him saying this at all, yet in the very next scene after TC breaks out of the Temple with Miss Super Precog, he's got his regular Mr. Handsome face back again.

I just didn't get the whole magic face-changing thing at all. Seemed like a perfectly redundant bit of the plotting.
__________________
Ianzin
Hour Youth Income Ache Sad If Ran Stow Watch Oath Ink
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-05-2002, 09:27 PM
CyberPundit CyberPundit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Well the face-changing device does change the face enough to be useful with people who don't know you well or in poor light. From the point of view of the character it does make sense to give it a shot since he doesn't know in advance how good it is. But yeah from the point of view of the director/scriptwriter it does seem redundant since it doesn't help Cruise. I assume it's there to show off another cool piece of technology. It also serves to stress how determined Cruise is (since it's highly painful)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-06-2002, 05:00 PM
medstar medstar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Alexandria, Va
Posts: 2,521
Another thing that bothers me is when after Tom gets his new eyes, he goes back to police station to get Agatha. In order to get inside he puts his old eye up to the scanner which announces his name nice and loud. But security didn't really show up to get him until Witwer noticed him in the temple. I would have thought that security would have rigged an alarm to go off if Tom came back to the facility.
__________________
In pursuit of truth, happiness, and the inalienable right to have a foolish opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-06-2002, 09:15 PM
Gozu Tashoya Gozu Tashoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Or cancelled his access altogether. I mean, geez, dot-coms are more thorough about firing their employees....
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-07-2002, 02:28 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,533
[quote]tanstaafl, that was my response to my daughter when she asked me after the movie. But her follow-up was "then why was Anderton standing there, arm outstretched and sighting down the barrel of the gun at eye level?"

I didn't have an answer to that logical question.[quote]

My recollection was that Anderton had the arm outstetched in the pre-cog vision, but had his arm at stomach level after Crow was actually shot.

I guess we'll have to see it again on video.
---
OP: Ok, if the happy ending was real, what's the point of the prison guard's remark? According to the Second Hollywood Law of Economy, all scenes, appearances and dialogue must serve some particular purpose.
---
I would think that the face-changing thingy would provide a good enough disguise for the odd surveillance camera.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-07-2002, 02:44 AM
DMark DMark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
I thought Agatha's story was about what would have happened if their son had not been killed...a fantasy for people who have lost loved ones and wanted to know how their life would have been lived out.
I never thought about the fantasy ending until reading this post. Interesting thought.
My SO noticed that there was a handicap sign (the same as we have today) on the elevator, and also found it odd that with all the wonderful innovations of the future, that guy was still sitting in a wheelchair that was designed years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-07-2002, 03:21 PM
red_dragon60 red_dragon60 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
I had a thought that the end proceeded as normal, but the precogs were put in a hologram chamber like one of Rufus'. There they would not be haunted by their visions and they would be away from prying eyes. Besides, do you really think that there are pristine islands left in the future?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-07-2002, 03:45 PM
red_dragon60 red_dragon60 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Idea! The neuroin dealer at the beginning says that "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". As it turns out, John has only one functional eye as the result of revealing one to the spider. In the land of the blind (the halo-prison), the one eyed man (John) is king (master of his own fantasies).


As an alternative to my previous post, maybe the precogs were haloed.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-08-2002, 04:12 PM
red_dragon60 red_dragon60 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Geez, this needs a bump so I can get a reply on my ideas! Shoot them down if you have to, I am desperate for attention!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-08-2002, 10:48 PM
Gravity Gravity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
I believe that Mr. Scary Illicit Eye Surgeon told Anderton that the effects of the droopy-drug would only last a half-hour or so, and that it would hurt like heck when his face re-solidified.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-11-2013, 03:12 AM
mbahk2 mbahk2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Not fantasy

The ending cannot be in John Anderson's fantasy or dream because before he was haloed he did not figure out who the killer was. Agatha did not tell John or his wife who the killer was and John had not enough time to figure that out before being haloed. Only John's wife figured it out later and saved him. There is no reason for John to make Lamar the killer in his fantasy life. He'd be living happily ever after with his son as it had always been his strongest desire.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-11-2013, 06:49 AM
Unintentionally Blank Unintentionally Blank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Deleted...not feeding the ZOMBIETHREAD!

Last edited by Unintentionally Blank; 01-11-2013 at 06:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-11-2013, 12:57 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Saw the future and didn't like it

Last edited by msmith537; 01-11-2013 at 12:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.