|
Post by submachine on May 3, 2006 5:17:31 GMT -5
once Frank makes the transition, he is everytime thereafter. What a convenient plot device for a writer. Unfortunately writers know not to use it since explains anything and everything and therefore its not an explanation at all. MD Frank cannot exist and not-exist at the same time. He cannot exist before Donnie shoots him AND not-exist before Donnie shoots him. In fact, he does NOT exist before Donnie shoots him, because we know from the POTT that the killing is what creates him. Therefore, the MD Frank which does exist before Donnie shoots is the MD Frank from the prior TU of the time-loop.
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on May 3, 2006 8:11:48 GMT -5
... writers know not to use it since explains anything and everything and therefore its not an explanation at all. Hmm. And you fit deus ex machina -- as a central theme in this movie, and a device that definitively is used to "explain anything and everything" -- into your logic ... how? (And doesn't it seem a bit presumptuous to speak for what writers, as a class, know and/or do on balance?) In fact, he does NOT exist before Donnie shoots him, because we know from the POTT that the killing is what creates him. The killing does create him. It also, as I'm proposing, unfetters him from the bonds of three dimensions. The walls around his temporal existence disappear when he becomes MD -- and therefore it encompasses whatever time he chooses. He cannot exist before Donnie shoots him AND not-exist before Donnie shoots him. Therefore, the MD Frank which does exist before Donnie shoots is the MD Frank from the prior TU of the time-loop. This is a fine, generally accepted, oft-mentioned, beaten, bruised and, for me, tired perspective. If you're determined to apply 3D causality to a 4D construct, I'll agree with you ad infinitum that the results are: fits and starts in time, loops, the possibility of previous TUs ... and definitive absolutes in ALL CAPS that Frank DID or DID NOT DO one thing or another on the causal timeline. That is, you get the time-travel interpretation, which is the first one nearly all viewers (quite rightly) assume after seeing the movie without having listened to the commentary and played through the web site -- two additional texts many of consider canon, though you aren't required to. We're not debating from the same set of data. I'm proposing a logic that works both in a multi-dimensional universe and maintains the integrity of the plotline of the movie as Kelly himself has described it, including reconciling web and commentary content. I'm bounded by Kelly's own statement that Donnie does not time travel. But, as I said, you shouldn't feel similarly constrained.
|
|
|
Post by brph on Oct 10, 2006 11:15:32 GMT -5
i do not understand why the TU is created when the jet engine falls in the PU on october the 2nd. Or i do not understand what the difference is between the jet engine going back in time, caused by donnie, or by the time distortion. When the jet engine comes from the time distortion, caused by the accident, it creates a TU that will destroy the world, but when donnie sends it back no TU is created. WHY??? sorry to stray off topic a bit but can someone address the question Jorrit brought up? It's the same thing that I've been wondering. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Oct 10, 2006 15:25:19 GMT -5
Jorrit's question assumes that the engine is sent back in time, and that the engine is the direct cause of the TU. Niether assumption is supported by the movie or associated material. The wording of the PoTT suggests that the Artifact is a symptom of the TU and not the other way around. The TU happens, and the TU produces the Artifact. "Artifacts provide first sign that a Tangent Universe has occured." www.tonystuff.co.uk/darko-time.htmSecondly, Donnie is not required to send the engine back in time at all, just to send it to the PU, the Primary Universe, of which the TU is a parallel. I posted some diagrams a while back that highlights the difference in interpretation here.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 29, 2006 22:57:10 GMT -5
The POTT notwithstanding, what if what we are witnessing in the film takes place in the Primary Universe, and the Tangent Universe is toddling along in near parallel, unseen? This would satisfy some otherwise confusing/contradictory plot points. (Doesn't the "corruption" have to occur in the PU? How could it occur in the TU, which it causes to exist?*) At the end of the film it appears that the "corruption" and the "black hole" are occurring simultaneously in the sky above Middlesex. Suppose that the plane engine, "initially", flies through the "corruption" on Oct. 30 and is sent back in time to the beginning of the film (that is, the "corruption" appears as a rift or torn seam in time in the airspace in which the plane is flying and the sole part of the plane to pass through it is the engine, slicing it off and sending it back to Oct. 2). The appearance then of the engine signals the presence of the Tangent Universe, setting into motion the succeeding events of the film to rescue the Primary Universe. This would help explain the presence of MD Frank in coexistence with the living Frank: MD Frank may be crossing over from the TU to guide/coerce Donnie. Also, if what we are seeing is the PU, it would give the characters, ML and MD, more of a vested interest in saving the PU. It may also explain how Donnie seems to know in advance what events must happen to fulfill his mission (how does he know to bring the gun to Roberta Sparrow's house, with which to kill Frank?). Even if what we see happens in the TU, the Frank who appears to Donnie need not have a rational, temporal explanation: the TU exists in a state of corruption-how can the plane engine as Artifact exist as well? Gretchen, as MD, does not appear to Donnie. Frank has been appointed as guide, a future "ghost". To try to over-explain how anything in the film could logically make sense is to ignore a major plot point: there is a flaw, a disruption in the orderly flow of space/time. (Of course, one may insist that the story at least comply with its own interior logic.) Still, MD Frank must be from the TU. He states unequivocally that the world WILL end in a very specific amount of time, evidence both that he is from the TU (his "world" will end in any outcome) and that he is from the "future". The specific end time may also confirm the following supposition. I don't think the "corruption" occurs at the start of the film; what is that snaking black cloud (the "storm" from Donnie's poem) if not the "corruption": it's not the vortex/"black hole" (the term"black hole" continues to bother me as astronomically inaccurate in the story context). And yes, Donnie's mother and sister must be on the plane as part of the Ensurance Trap: if he does not snatch the plane engine prior to its entering the "corruption" the plane may crash for "real", albeit a relatively small matter compared with universal extinction. So if what we witness is happening in the TU, how could the "corruption" send the engine back to the TU? That is, supposing Donnie misses his chance: we know what the "corruption" will do. But if we are "in" the TU, the "corruption" sending the engine back would seem to make no difference. Unless in the beginning the engine comes from the PU into the TU. Is this what is meant by "returning" the Artifact to the PU? Sorry; late and tired. Another poster posited a closed loop, if Donnie does not take action. I think there is some credence to this. If the "corruption" sends the engine back to Oct. 2 again, somehow bypassing the "black hole", it seems a closed loop would be created, broken only by Donnie finally making use of the wormhole. That this has happened "previously" I don't know. *I also wanted to suggest that the "corruption" could be an aberration because it has created itself, a temporal and physical impossibility, hence a corruption. I guess this could tie in with the "corruption" happening within the TU, though it doesn't necessarily follow that it must occur within the TU. There is something about mirroring too (both in parallels and in cycling circuits) but I haven't worked that out yet, if ever. Apologies if I've stated the obvious/restated what exists elsewhere; still a neophyte to this process. Please note too: confining my interpretation to what happens in the film only("If it ain't onscreen, it don't exist"). Some other odd ends I couldn't fit in above: FAA man and Cherita Chen as Angels/Observers, to check on progress or lack of. Richard Kelly as ML.
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Oct 30, 2006 9:26:03 GMT -5
Thanks for both the thinking and the sharing, Kevin. I appreciate your exploration of the content. There's a great deal there and I may be shortchanging you by responding only to one bit, so upfront apologies.
The suggestion that the movie's events unfold in the PU and not the TU has been explored on occasion, but, like most questions about the movie, nothing's been definitively determined. What I have often defaulted to is Kelly's commentary, where he implies (maybe states) that what we're seeing is occuring in the tangent universe. I think the clearest evidence is the change in the timeline -- if we are back in 10/2 at the end of the movie, and it's all happened in the PU, then I think everyone would have had to have time traveled, which many of us believe is not the case.
i also think the "unwind" at the end shows -- again, per kelly -- the TU unraveling safely, rather than destroying the PU as would have happened had Donnie not completed the living receiver cycle. The images are flashes of what we've watched, and are of the TU unraveling, so we must have been watching events in the TU.
Those are just some of the guideposts some of us have leaned on in the discussion, and they're offered only for consideration and not as empirical evidence to disprove anything. I'm intrigued by the discussion and would love to hear more.
Just a usage note: you may help people engage with you by positing individual ideas or posting individual questions, offering a couple bits of context, and inviting discussion. A post as long as yours above -- even with all its interesting ideas -- is harder to find a foothold in.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 30, 2006 10:17:56 GMT -5
Thank you ProvidencePortal for the reply and tips (was a lot of my ideas spiraling out at once!). Will have to view the film again, especially the near end. My impression was the corruption was occurring there but could be as you suggest, an unraveling, though seems to be happening before Donnie does his wormhole thing. Still wondering: if we're in the TU, is this where the corruption occurs? Yeah, don't go for the time travel theory myself. But couldn't it be that the PU has "reset" itself; no need of going back in time but that the PU has wrapped back on itself to Oct. 2 (sorry, not articulating clearly enough). Am working on a diagram of my own, to better illustrate my ideas. Not necessarily stuck on insisting we're in the PU in the film; exploring it "what if?". I am truly grateful for this site. Have just recently seen the film and was left with a multitude of questions and no one in vicinity with which to discuss. Haven't had a film banging around in my head since Fight Club, and this blows the doors off that one! Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Oct 30, 2006 16:32:11 GMT -5
Here's a way to envisage the whole Pu/TU/Corruption situation;
Imagine a balloon that has a patch where the rubber is thinner than the rest of the balloon. If you squeeze the balloon this thin patch will pop out as a bubble. Here the balloon is the PU, the bubble is the TU and the thin patch is the corruption.
If the balloon is squeezed the bubble will inflate (time goes on in th TU) - if this is allowed to go on too long (28 days in the TU) the bubble will pop and take the balloon with it (...destroying all existence...).
However take the pressure off and the bubble deflates (the TU 'unwinds') and the balloon (pu) is back to normal.
The corruption as I see it is exactly that - a weak point in spacetime from which the TU branches.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 30, 2006 17:35:22 GMT -5
The way I had been envisioning it is like taking a rubber band and pinching it in the middle between two fingers. There is a loop above and a loop below. One loop, above, is the PU; the loop below is the TU. Where they meet, in the center where your fingers are pinching, is Oct. 2 on one side and Oct. 30 on the other. The two universes are mirror images. The "corruption" is what splits the TU off the PU. I also imagine a line, representing the time/space continuum, intersecting the contact point: to the left is the past, to the right...? If the "corruption" is vanquished (or prevented?) the TU dissolves and the line continues on to the right, the PU remains in existence. If the "corruption" is allowed, then the loop continues closed, ad infinitum, or you get tired of holding the rubber band and everything collapses (not quite as impressive as a balloon exploding, I admit). This, to me, does not indicate time travel per se but that the fabric of time/space is folded back on itself so that those two dates are in contact with each other. Does this belong in the "Physics" thread?
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Oct 30, 2006 19:09:17 GMT -5
It's more metaphysics i think. Could go on the physics boards I guess, Time travel too at a pinch, but it's fine here. Darko Discussion is pretty much all encompassing!
It may not describe time travel per se, but it is indiciative of a time loop, which is something I've never been able to make fit with the movie...
I won't get too deep into that now though - I have the sense that you are working your way through the site; no doubt you'll have a feel for my opinions before you're done!
Welcome to the site by the way; it's nice to know the movie is still drawing people in!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Oct 30, 2006 22:30:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome and the responses. Have already noticed a few of the bigger brains in these boards, of which you are one. Yes, working my way through a few things. As an aside, I remember being somewhat interested in the film when first exposed to it as a "coming attraction". Still, it seemed presented as just another "teen shocker/horror" flick and I knew of no one who had seen it to set me right (I'm sure this is a familiar story). Then a couple of weeks ago I came across it (DC version) at my local library and decided to give it a view. I immediately had to watch it a second time. It remains an intriguing puzzle which has been spread across all my available mental bandwidth. Thanks for the encouraging comments (and to the previous poster ProvidencePortal). I appreciate the opportunity to put my own feeble figurings out here in hopes of exchange with more intelligent life forms. Oops, I'm already late for the party. See you tomorrow?
|
|
|
Post by submachine on Nov 9, 2006 17:24:24 GMT -5
The killing does create him. It also, as I'm proposing, unfetters him from the bonds of three dimensions. Regardless of the terminology used, prior to being "unfettered" (Manipulated Dead) he is "fettered" (Manipulated Living). You get the time-travel interpretation, which is the first one nearly all viewers (quite rightly) assume after seeing the movie without having read the POTT. We all understand an MD can travel "everywhere" and "everywhen". After an MD is created, it may travel back in time (this is the 4rth dimensional construct that we all also understand). AFTER it is created, this is the part you are missing. Therefore ML first (before MD Frank wakes Donnie), then MD after ML is shot. Therefore, the time-loop must be present. If you are having trouble understanding, imagine the movie reflects your theory. MD first in the "linear" timeline before ML. Then later in the movie, imagine Donnie shoots....but misses. Oops?
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Nov 27, 2006 12:55:12 GMT -5
AFTER it is created, this is the part you are missing. Therefore ML first (before MD Frank wakes Donnie), then MD after ML is shot. Therefore, the time-loop must be present. "After" and "first/then" are post hoc, ergo propter hoc statements -- logic based on linear causality along a single timeline. That's what you're missing -- my proposition is a timeline is meaningless from the perspective of a 4th-dimensional entity. No constraints of before, after, or first, second and finally. If you are having trouble understanding, imagine the movie reflects your theory. MD first in the "linear" timeline before ML. Then later in the movie, imagine Donnie shoots....but misses. Oops?. What a terrifically condescending suggestion. I have considered the view you're promoting. The loop theory is the simplest of any proposed in the movie and the usual one for those who don't include other data -- like the PoTT, website and commentary -- in the conversation. I and we have heard it, considered it and are thinking beyond it. That you would assume my perspective being different must mean I just don't understand yours is pompous. If you'd like to have an exchange, let's. But that requires you to consider other theories as energetically as you seem to expect others to be open to yours.
|
|
|
Post by submachine on Jan 1, 2007 6:06:13 GMT -5
If you'd like to have an exchange, let's. But that requires you to consider other theories as energetically as you seem to expect others to be open to yours I have considered your theory, and I have spent considerable effort in trying to explain, with details and specifics of the movie, why it fails. If you disagree, let the exchange be on why, again using details and specifics of the movie. "After" and "first/then" are post hoc, ergo propter hoc statements -- logic based on linear causality along a single timeline. That's what you're missing -- my proposition is a timeline is meaningless from the perspective of a 4th-dimensional entity. No constraints of before, after, or first, second and finally. Again, a) a created entity must have a starting point, and b) we know the starting point of MD (Frank) because its creation described in the PoTT: The death of ML (Frank). You a) have not disproved or even disputed these facts, b) continue to deny that these facts prove ML must exist before MD, and c) have not stated how your theory is possible inclusive of these specifics facts. In addition, I stated that your theory that the MD may "timelessly" exist before the ML, falls apart if Donnie shoots but misses, and you have yet to disprove or even dispute this.
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Jan 3, 2007 16:54:04 GMT -5
Again, a) a created entity must have a starting point. Again, this is an assumption presented as a statement of fact. And, again, it is a comprehensive statement projected from partial evidence. It comes from a set of "musts" that are built on 3D physics. What's missing is how causality is perceived and affected by a creature that exists freely in (that is, with power over) all four dimensions. Again, my supposition is that linear logic as applied by 3D folk is meaningless to a 4D entity. What a sentient 2D line perceives as nonsensical -- the equivalent of a "time travel paradox" -- in a 2D world is our everyday, quite normal 3D existence. Bump that up one dimension and you have the dispute, if not the disproval, of your point of view. That's my contention, anyway. There are many more, and probably most are more easily plotted out and plodded through. I wouldn't be offended if you took up the conversation with one of them instead.
|
|