Soo, the dog is running with a foot in its mouth at the end in the credits.
The same sequence starts the movie withe the dog and the foot.
Does this mean that the guy already killed before he started to play the game or what?
I think the ending was just a little side-joke like - "was it a game or was it real!?"
But I also don´t understand why they included the scene with the dog & foot at the beginning of the movie...definitely could confuse the ones who already saw the picture!
"They worship neither a god nor a demon, but a dead man"
[deleted]
it was just used maybe as archived footage, its just an old movie gag to put a twist on the "it was only a dream" twist
Doctor: ...Theres a bannana grove there now. I like bannanas. Bannanas are good!
I still don't get it coz the movies finishes on the credits it shows the bit with the dog and the foot it also says 'don't forget', as if you should have noticed it in the beginning! Like it goes back and shows you something you might have missed. I have to admit that the first time I watched it, I did not notice the dog having a foot in it's mouth until the second time I watched it. Hope i'm making sense here lol!
sharethat scene is the most superfluous i've ever seen. it negates the whole twist they were making at the end....
-------------------------------
War is the end of all arguments.
WELL...after watching bits and pieces of this movie over the years and finally watching the whole thing tonight this is what I thought of the foot at the end.
Micheal gave the Brainscan disc to the principal towards the end of the movie and the principal did tell Micheal that he'd preview anything that Micheal wanted to show to the horror club. Thus, the principal was the killer who "created" the foot that you see in the end which would be ironic considering his whole speech about how "violence is bad mmmkay". Unfortunately for him, he's a noob at video games unlike Micheal and managed to lose the foot to the dog. lol Probably took him the whole 2 hours too.
Don't watch Beavis and Butthead expecting Kubrick and don't listen to Beethoven expecting ICP.
that is how I interpreted the ending too
shareWhat I never got was, did the Trickster really appear in the principal's chair or was it in Michael's mind or something?
shareGood Question
shareI saw the film today and after that little half-post-credits scene I thought that maybe only first killing took place? Like...maybe Furlong's character actually committed the murder and, upon awakening, the other deaths were falsified except for the first one?
Then I thought some more and figured you never actually SAW Furlong kill his best friend. The best friend's necklace just showed up in his freezer... No visual evidence, though the friend indeed was killed... I really don't know, it's all up for interpretation but I'd like to believe that the first death actually took place and wasn't erased upon Furlong waking up at the end...
"There's an elephant in the room. And it's name is Sex." - Dexter, Dexter
Is this the movie where in the end, the bad guy actually turned out to be a good guy in the end? Meaning that all of the people that he supposedly killed turned out to be alive and well? Not only that but in the end the kid got the girl he liked, became sort of popular and the main bad guy sat in the chair with a drink in his hand to toast the kid (Furlong) like "here's to you" with a smile sort of to say things are going to be ok kind of thing. So what was it all? An illusion, a dream though I think it's too simple to say that and why go through it all? To teach Michael responsibility? self cofidence? Just to scare the crap out of him? He indeed was a "trickster" Like I said after all he didn't turn out to be the bad guy at all and was more like sort of a friend, even though you woudln't think so with all of the stuff the kid had to go through but everything worked out if indeed this is the movie I remember.
shareThe way I took it is this:
In the beginning, before he plays the first disc, he comes upon a crime scene, though we don't see many details. We also see the dog with the foot. THEN when he plays Brainscan the first time, Trickster actually tells him that the content of the game will be provided by Michael, sort of like a guided hypnosis thing. So I figure the first murder with the foot and the dog DID take place in real life, but it wasn't actually Michael who did the murdering. He simply heard about it, perhaps not even paying attention when he heard about the real murder, and his subconscious fed that into the game.
I'm never more than a carton of baking soda away from a doomsday device.
I really wasn't all that crazy about the scene. It just didn't seem to make sense.
shareYeah, I agree, I wasn't that crazy about it either. What I expressed was a possibility that came to mind the first time I saw the film, but if I'm right, I think they did a poor job of showing it with the mid-credits scene with the dog. As it is, it does seem to completely undermine the whole concept that the murders took place in Michael's head.
Then again, the shot of the Trickster at the very end causes the same problem. Are we to then assume that the Trickster is real, but the murders were not? That's an even worse idea.
This movie had a great concept, I thought. And as poorly executed as so much of it was, the film was fun and I did really love the Trickster. He sort of seemed like you'd expect Freddy Krueger to be if Freddy decided he wanted to be your friend instead of kill you.
Honestly, while I think most remakes are terrible (and often unnecessary), this is one that would benefit from the remake treatment. I think Hollywood would get less backlash about remaking movies if they focused on ones that had good ideas but poor execution, rather than classics that already got it right. The whole point of a remake (in my opinion) is to either do something different with the original, or improve upon it. And seeing an improved version of Brainscan would be pretty spectacular, if you ask me.
________________________
I'm never more than a carton of baking soda away from a doomsday device.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Those scenes do confound the viewer, and I'm not sure if it's just poor execution with the story, or if they did it purposely to confuse the viewer..
What I wonder is if it's possible that he's still playing the game, but thinking that he's actually back in regular "reality". Sort of like how when he's playing the game and he's thinking it's reality, but it's really the game he's still in, sort of like another trick in the game to make him think it's all real. If the game was interfacing with his subconscious to somehow put that theme of murder crimes into the game from when he first came across the crime scene earlier in "reality", how would the dog with the foot in his mouth walking in the ending credits, and the beginning credits make sense?...because if Michael didn't see the dog walking with the severed foot in the beginning, then why would the same dog with the foot be in the games reality, but then be back in regular reality after he had finished the game? I would assume then, that it's still in the game reality. But that doesn't necessarily make sense either, because the movie starts out with the dog running with the foot in his mouth, and we are to assume that this is the real "reality" that Michael is in before he has ever played Brainscan before. But how is it possible for the exact same dog with the foot in his mouth from the game to be in reality AND to be in the game as well, especially if Michael had never seen the dog with the foot in real life (this would mean that his subconscious mind couldn't have fed that to the game). It's basically like, which dog is real? The beginning dog or the ending dog? They try to make one seem like it existed in reality and the other was just in the game. But how is it possible for the exact dog with a severed foot in it's mouth to be in both places, without any connection or reason to be? And also, if he had finished playing the game, why would he be seeing Trickster in regular reality? Was it just his own projection or imagination? Was Trickster somehow real? Was he still in the game, but duped into thinking the game was over? Was any of it real? Or is the game just making people delusional to where they don't know or can't tell what is real or not? Or, could the game be spilling over into reality, via the hypnotic techniques it uses on the gamer's subconscious and using real life people to do it's own maniacal deeds and give the Trickster his own life (in people's minds)? In essence, who's being played? The game or the gamer?
So, my theory is this. The whole movie IS the game, Brainscan. WE the viewers are in essence, Michael. We are playing the "game" by watching the movie, just like he does when he puts the game Brainscan in and thinks that it's real life, but it's just the game. The clue would be the dog with the foot in the beginning. If we presume that the dog from the brainscan game in the beginning of the movie was really from the game "reality", NOT real reality (in the movie's reality) then the whole thing was a game and that's how the movie let's us know that. It also tells us that at the end credits, where it stops and the dog comes up to the screen with the foot and Trickster's voice says "you forgot something", which is directed at the viewer, so this would imply that we just played the game brainscan by watching the movie. If you only look at the movie in the context of is the reality in the movie real, or is the game reality real, then this theory probably may not apply. Unless you step further back and look at it as if you were the gamer putting in this movie and it's a simulation where we are like Michael's character, viewing it from his point of view, sort of how he does while playing Brainscan.