I finally saw this movie about a month ago, and I found the very end thought provoking. So I want to know what others thought of it too.
In your opinion, what happens after the end of 12 monkeys?
The woman scientist is on the plane to do what, exactly?
Quasi-related, does anyone know if the movie it’s based on ends differently?
Did I miss something here? I thought it was pretty obvious that the guy goes to the cities that were mentioned earlier in the movie, spreads the virus, 5 billion people die, and the few that live go underground. Or was there something suggesting that multiple outcomes could have occured after he boarded the airplane?
The ending is a little less than obvious. They guy is on the plane, but so are the future scientists. Presumably, this is NOT as it happened before.
I think that the movie allows for an open interpretation. Either the scientists outright STOP the virus. OR they get a specimen of the virus to take back to the future to make a syrum to save what’s left of the planet.
Well, that’s what I thought. Beacuase of the information he sent back (sent forth?) they knew who did it and sent a scientist back with their orginal goal of getting information to cure the people who were left.
This is still a depressing ending as it means A) the scientists are tragically short sighted (or possibly evilly self-serving?) in not trying to stop the epidemic or B) the Bruce Wills character was deluded to think he could have stopped it.
The future scientist never expressed any interest in trying to stop the plague. So- the plague spreads, 5 billion people ie, and the scientists in the future have more information.
The scientist was there as backup. If the original carrier failed, she would have spread the virus herself.
They were shown to be bastards from the very first scene, and there was no reason for anyone to trust anything they said to Cole. It was clear from what the woman said on the plane that she thought of people as insects and didn’t care how many of them died.
I don’t see why the scientists would have sought to ensure the spread of the virus, RealityChuck. According to the original, “pure” timeline before the future scientists started sending people back, the virus got out there and spread anyway. So if they were pro-virus, they would have left things as they were.
So I see no reason to doubt their claim that they don’t think history can be altered, and that they were only seeking a “pure” form of the virus to study to devise a cure in the future.
Of course, that doesn’t make them good people; doubtless they wanted a vaccine or cure to serve their own interests.
If I have any criticism of the movie, it’s that its fatalistic theme worked against telling a good story. I don’t mind an unhappy ending, but I do like to be surprised by an ending. Since everything happened just like Cole’s dream said it would, there was no surprise.
Anyway, the virus was already released when the security guy got nosey.
The virus has already been released to the security guy, who will presumably affect others as they board planes. However, COle himself says that he’s not there to stop the virus, that he can’t. The future seems fairly unchangable throughout the movie, though I’m certain that in Cole’s dreams the virus spreader IS Brad Pitt.
Presumably the scientist gets a sample of the virus - that’s what they claim they need from the beginning.
The scientist didn’t come to be on the plane because of Cole’s actions. They can’t change anything. But she will now remember who she was sitting next to all those years ago, which will help in tracking down a pure sample.
Let’s not forget that the “scientists” aren’t really all that competent, either. Doesn’t one admit she’s actually a veterinarian?
I don’t understand where all this confusion comes from. Yeah, sure the scientists are kind of jerks at times, but Cole is a criminal (probably) with poor impulse control. And when he does a good job, they’re nice to him. I just watched it again this weekend, and I saw nothing to dispute the facts as they are told:
You can’t change the past. It already happened. For example, little Jimmy sees the whole scene with the virologist and big Cole and Dr. Railly. That happened when he was a kid. Then, he grows up, goes back in time, and it happens the same way.
The scientists want a sample of the original virus, before it mutated. They can’t stop the spread, but they can go back and get a sample. So, they use some undesirables to find out where it came from, and then send a scientist back to get infected with the original virus. She says she’s in insurance. You know, for the survival of the human race, not insurance that the virus gets spread. It already did. You can’t change it.
Everyone keeps saying that you can’t change the past but what about that lecture that Dr. Railly gives about the “prophets” in WWI, etc.? She would’ve never been talking about that had they not been mucking around in the past. That’s the only example of future changing I can think of right off hand but I’m pretty sure there’s more.
Nobody changed the past, Cisco. She was able to give the lecture about the “prophets” because the men had been sent back in time. Things happened the way they happened, and that’s why at the airport Cole couldn’t act in a way that contradicted his memory.
Well, I have a question. If they did not believe you could change the future, why did they try to shoot (kill) the guy distributing the virus at the airport? If they needed samples wouldn’t it be easier just to grab them from him after he de-planed, rather than running through the airport with a gun setting off detecters?
I took her remark, “I’m in insurance.” to mean insurance against Cole’s failing to kill him. She would do it. A back-up plan.
I thought it was very clear that the past could not be changed, and the scientists knew this, so their sole mission was to obtain a pure strain of the virus in order to
save what’s left of the human race in their own time. At the end, Cole felt that he could change the past, but instead played out the same event that he witnessed as a child. This raises all sorts of questions about fate and freewill, while neatly dancing around the paradoxes that plague other time-travel movies (i.e. Terminator 2).
But what I really want to know is, what’s up with that toothless guy? The one who kept calling Cole “Bob”? I can’t figure that out to save my life.
The movie in question is La jetée (1962) by Chris Marker. Lasting only 29 min., it does not have the bio-terrorism sub-plot. The whole script (fairly short) can be found here: http://cs.art.rmit.edu.au/projects/media/marker/Script-_La_Jetee_354.html
What is very interesting about this film is that except for one short shot, it is entirely made up of stills. More like a diaporama than an actual motion picture. There is obviously no dialogue and the script linked above is the voice-over narration.
I saw it a few years before the 12 monkeys came out and I thought it was fascinating.
I don’t believe there is any explanation for that other than it’s Terry Gilliam’s way of keeping you guessing. I think what struck me about the movie the first time I saw it is that throughout much of it you don’t know what’s real and what isn’t. Cole could really be on this mission, or he could just be completely insane. I believe Gilliam used that toothless guy to further perpetuate this ambiguity. But I dunno. I’m interested on hearing what others think.
That was pretty much my take on it, too. I was wondering if anyone else saw it that way…I figured that she was going to either kill the guy or crash the plane into the ocean.
Well, I’m not sure who the toothless guy is either, but let’s at least take closer note of the fact that he’s toothless. We’re told several times in the movie that the future scientists track and retrieve their agents through their teeth, and when Cole decides to stay in the past he removes the necessary molars.
So whatever else the toothless guy is, he’s a former time traveler. Maybe Cole resembles one of his own ancestors, named Bob, who the toothless guy knows and who he mistakes Cole for.
That puzzled me as well. After saying again and again that they can’t really change the past, why try to kill the guy at all? What’s the point? My best guess is that they weren’t completely sure that the past really couldn’t be changed, and figured it was worth a shot.