I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Highlander films for deliberately complicated, convoluted plots.
The only one I saw was I think Highlander 2: The Quickening. I remember something about very complicated rules governing warriors transiting between dimensions, depending on who killed whom and in what order. Or something like that. The director or screenwriter even poked fun in the film about how hard it is for a newbie to make sense of the whole premise. A woman made friends with one of these warriors and said, “Now let me get this straight: if you kill him he has to go back, unless he kills you first, and then you have to kill someone there to get back here…???”
Sorry if I’m not doing justice to this epic saga of supernatural violence, but I didn’t even really grasp what was the whole point when I saw it ten years ago, and now my memory of it is much faded.
Gotta disagree with you here. Kirk himself tells us. When Kirk sells the glasses to the antique dealer, another character (Spock, I think) comments that those are the glasses McCoy gave him. Kirk replies,“And he will again”.
Terminator: The first movie establishes a time loop, but it isn’t a closed time loop. Kyle Reese’s existence is not caused by the time loop itself; he would have been born and lived even in the absense of anything that happens in the loop. He is Johns’ father. This is an external cause. As it is presented in “The Terminator” (again, forget T2) the machines becoming intelligent is also something that happens independant of the loop. Another external cause.
Think of it this way. Given the timeline in the first movie, Kyle Reese would have been born and lived, the machines would have become intelligent, the nuclear war happened, the war between man and machine happened, and the time machine technology would have been developed by the machines to combat their enemies. Reese is sent back, and John Connor is concieved. Now if the only way that Reese could be sent back is by John Connor’s prompting, this would be a closed loop. But there are other possibilities. Perhaps in the original timeline, Sarah Connor concieved a son by someone other than Kyle Reese, and he is the leader of the Resistance. Perhaps the human resistance originally had a different leader, who was then replaced by John Connor in the time loop created by the events in The Terminator. Remember this is a time loop, which means the particular events we see in the movie may be the second, or third, or millionth loop. But it is possible (once you accept the possibility of time travel) for the loop to have been created entirely by events that occurred externally to the loop itself.
But once we find out that that Skynet, Terminators, and all of the evil machines’ technology (which presumedly includes time travel technology) is a result of neural net technology, all of which was developed from the neural net processor left from the first terminator. Thus, neural net technology is what leads to the development of neural net technology. Or, to put it another way, without the time machine, it wouldn’t have been possible to invent the time machine. This is the same dilemma Asimov deals with in The End of Eternity
On a flow chart, the timeline in “The Terminator” would work something like this: (A–>B means A causes B)
A–>B–>C–>D–>B, creating a BCD loop with an external cause, A. T2 would look more like this A–>B–>C–>A, creating an ABC closed loop with no external cause.
Dang, this is fun. Can we argue about whether the events in “Total Recall” are real or caused by the Recall procedure next?
However, Kyle would not have been sent back if his son John hadn’t sent him back. Had the son not sent Kyle back, John wouldn’t have been conceived. In this way, John Conner causes his own conception. This seems like a closed loop to me, since it was John who sent back Kyle. The rest of the explanation you give is too convoluted a rationalization for me to wrap my brain around this late.
**
Ok, I’ll bite. They’re real. There is one scene with Ronny Cox and Michael Ironside in which Ah-nold is not present. If these were memories, Ah-nold would not be able to remember something he wasn’t there for.
Ambushed: the first 3/4 that you liked was based on the same premise as the final 1/4. The premise drove the whole movie, it wasn’t just dropped in late.
For me, Fight Club was a “two-take” movie. There are movies that are good for just one viewing, that you never desire to see again; a lot of “twist ending” movies work like this for me (The Usual Suspects). There are movies that work well over and over and over again (Casablanca). “Fight Club” worked for me in the theater, and I enjoyed a second viewing, because knowing the secret gives you a different perspective from which to view the main body of the film. All of the clues that are dropped, that you didn’t get the first time jump out at you. But after a second viewing, it lost steam for me.
In the “cult classics” thread, I identified “Fight Club” as a modern cult classic in the making, and BlackKnight’s reaction seems to support me.
Admittedly, this is the weakest part of my argument. First, I’ll quote the most relevant part of my reasoning:
I’ll simplify the rest of my argument as best I can. There was an original timeline, one unchanged by the time travel we see in the movie. In this timeline, someone other than the John Connor we see in the movie is the leader of the resistance–let’s call him Bob Smith. Skynet sends back Arnie to kill Bob or his mother in the past, and Kyle is sent back to stop him. While in the past, Kyle and Sarah concieve John, and he becomes the human resistance leader in the new timeline. This creates the loop we see in the movie, which then repeats over and over again.
Is this plausible? Likely? Not at all. But it is logically possible, once you accept the possibility of time travel. And since a closed time loop is not logically possible, well, Sherlock Holmes had something to say about the implausible versus the impossible.
Total Recall: You make a good point. However, I think everything that happens after Arnie gets strapped in is a free-form delusion. First reason: everything that happens after that is exactly what the salesman said would happen. Could be a coincidence. Second reason: The girl pictured on the Rekall screens that Arnie asks for is identical, physically and in behavior (athletic, sleazy, and demure) to the resistance leader that Arnie encounters on Mars. Even if you discount the behavior as coincidence, how did an underground freedom fighter on Mars get her picture into a Virtual vacation simulation on Earth? Nah, I think the fat bald guy who claims he was sent in to bring Arnie out was telling the truth.
And a bad premise revealed at the end of the film cannot allow one to enjoy the preceding part of the movie? Only to be disgusted when the premise is finally revealed? Haven’t we all seen too many “Wizard of Oz”-like endings, for example?
The plot is absurd the second time around. That’s not to say the filmmaker didn’t try, what with the emphasis on insomnia, etc., early in the film. But in the end the premise is as nonsensical as the flying people in “Crouching Tiger…”
I’m NOT saying Fight Club was a lousy movie. I can enjoy even irrational films (which is good because nearly all of them are). But you certainly haven’t convinced me that the plot wasn’t ridiculous.
Nevertheless, I’ll be sure to cut my own balls off in the guise of a complete stranger for you if you like…
Gotta agree with you. I noticed that, too, and it was clearly deliberate on the part of the filmmakers. Besides, as my good friend (and sometime SDMB poster) KevinLeeC has pointed out, the telephone conversations between people on Earth and people on Mars at the beginning of the film are instantaneous, which wouldn’y be the case if you were really talking with someone on Mars. There’d be a several second delay.
A great many people find the plot incomprehensible, so it fits this thread quite well. I wasn’t trying to change your mind about disliking it. I’m not a big fan myself, I only kinda liked it. All I was doing was pointing out that the twist was deeply embedded in the entire run of the movie, and gradually built up to, not suddenly dumped on you, like in “No Way Out”. Without the twist, there is no “Fight Club”.
Not liking the premise is certainly a good reason for disliking a movie, but that doesn’t make a plot based on that premise nonsense. There is a difference between premise and plot. I loathe the movie “Birth of a Nation” because I find its racist premise odious, but I recognize it as a revoltionary piece of filmmaking technique. Within the context of that loathesome premise, its plot makes sense. The twist in Fight Club and the “flying people” (who don’t really fly so much as jump and land really well) in CTHD each make sense within the context (premise) established by the movie.
WIZARD OF OZ SPOILER AHEAD
And just knowing that you dislike “The Wizard of Oz” tells me that our tastes in movies are not going to coincide often. Were you really surprised to find out that the whole Oz part of the movie was just a dream? I figured it out about five minutes into the dream sequence the first time I saw it. Personally, I love twist endings when they are set up well, and I don’t see them coming.
Thanks, Number Six, for clarifying your comments. I understand and have come to largely share your view on this issue.
Fight Club Spoiler Warning
Please allow me to explain, however, that my criticism focused on the psychological and practical absurdities and impossibilities (or near-impossibilities, if you prefer) of the premise. Not even MPD (which probably isn’t even real anyway) could explain the bizarre twinning we see. It’s almost like we’re expected to set our threshold of disbelief to the point where we would expect miracles. In fact, it’s much like the suspension of disbelief we’re asked to hold in order to accept the ending of the new Planet of the Apes.
(As an aside, I’ve been told that there is absolutely nothing in CTHD which in any way provides a context to explain flying people.)
Finally, please don’t imagine that I don’t love Wizard of Oz! In my previous reference, what I was trying to say is that any subsequent movie that tries to do a Wizard-of-Oz-like ending usually is nothing more than pathetic plagiarism. I respect the first use of a particular ending, but tend to become more and more annoyed by each subsequent rip-off.
To summarize:
I dislike implausible premises and plots (e.g., Fight Club)
I’m very fond of unexpected plot twists and turns (as long as they are plausible)
There can be only ONE Wizard of Oz and ONE “waking up from dream” ending allowed in all cinematic history.
The real reason for my return to this thread’s topic was to nominate another incomprehensible film:
Alphaville, by Jean-Luc Godard
Not only does this film reach the pinnacle of pretension and is full of “art for art’s sake” (shudder!), I consider it one of the most incomprehensible assemblages of exposed celluloid not created by monkeys!
Now, I know that Godard is often considered a “genious”. So the best I can figure he earned that reputation from making other films besides this piece of dreck!
One example: Although the American private-eye Caution must travel to a distant planet for purposes of the plot, get this: He drives across interstellar space on the freeway in his old, beat up Citroën! At 60 mph, it takes him about half an hour to reach this planet!
I won’t even get into how the film portrays old-fashioned telephony switchers as “master computers”.
Yep, for the best “huh??” value around, it’s “Alphaville”!
SPOILERS GALORE: FIGHT CLUB, WIZARD OF OZ, CROUCHING TIGER
Ambushed: I completely agree that the explanation in Fight Club is completely implausible. This is a truly bizarre form of multiple personality disorder. If it were only that sometimes “Jack” is in change, and sometimes “Tyler” is in charge, that would work. But we see the two having a conversation with each other, which is not multiple personalities so much as a hallucination. There is just too many problems to really take it seriously. I still enjoyed it as a puzzle box type of story.
If you truly beleive that only one ending that reveals that the whole narrative was a dream is allowed, you’d have to reject The Wizard of Oz. The dream thing had been done before.
Whoever told you this is wrong. It is explained, several times. There are Hong Kong style movies with flying people, but this isn’t really one of them. The people jump extremely high and far, and land very softly. This degree of body control is gained at high levels of Wudan mastery, Wudan being an ancient, very powerful form of martial arts. If you dislike the movie because you don’t like the “flying” people or because you dislike the explanation, that’s fair, but to claim that it isn’t explained is unfair.
Ghost Story. There was no rationale at all for why…
[SPOILER FOR 20-YEAR-OLD MOVIE THAT’S LESS INTERESTING THAN 20-YEAR-OLD SUMO WRESTLING RERUNS ON ESPN CLASSIC]
…Eva Galli was still projecting herself from the sunken car…and why dragging the car up and opening the door would kill off her evil spirit didn’t make much sense either–I assume it could only exist in an airless environment or something, but why the hell did it exist in the first place? The only way it made any sense is if you were supposed to assume the explanations from the novel counted if they weren’t specifically fiddled with…and that’s a piss-poor way to make a movie.
Highlander was pretty straightforward. It’s still one of my favourite movies.
Sequels, however, completely ignored canon established in the first movie. H2 left me sitting in a corner muttering “Highlander 2 does not exist Highlander 2 does not exist Highlander 2 does not exist Highlander 2 does not exist…” until someone gave me enough brandy to put me to sleep. Not incomprehensible, just plain wrong.
Have you ever read So Long, and thanks for all the Fish? Well after seeing Total Recall in the theatres I was walking the mile up my hill to my house and thinking about it. Trying to decide which it was and then it hit me. Fullproof logic it had to be this way. I got home, was home alone watched some TV and it was gone. I couldn’t recall which side it fell on, or how it went and I just couldn’t get it back. Even after watching parts of it later. I know it was really good logic, something along the lines of he couldn’t possibly know that or he couldn’t possibly not know that! sigh, Maybe I’ll try again.
I was incredibly perplexed by The Goddess of 1967 for much of the movie. Although in the end I knew what was up. Luckily it was a beautifully shot movie.
Also Lips to Lips took me a long time before I was comfortable with it.
Oh, and if you went into Last Night cold, like I did, it will take you a Loooooong time to figure what the hell is going on. And until you do you have this strong urge to rewind the film to see if you missed something important.
P.S. I ALWAYS get movies. You know why? Because I am an extremely picky movie goer. Unless I’m 100% committed to seeing a movie, I ain’t budging. So usually if I see a movie, I know I’ll enjoy myself. So naturally I would recommend each and every one of the movies above. Except for maybe the Goddess, whoo didn’t see that coming.
