Near the end of the film, when Trent is back in Harglow's office, Harglow tells him that Trent delivered the manuscript of Sutter Cain's "In the Mouth of Madness" to him months ago and the book has already been in the stores for just over a month. Well then why did Harglow send Trent to look for Cain in the first place, if they already had his manuscript? And why didn't Trent see the book when he went to buy Cain's previous stuff?
shareFrom the looks of it Trent was actually real to begin with. Cane had begun manipulating reality through his writings for a while now. So much so that he was no able to travel there and become a God.
He manipulated his world along with the real world so as to write a story within both that allowed Trent to travel from reality to Canes world.
Now, while Trent was in the world of Cane, he was not completely under Canes control. He could be manipulated...however Cane needed him to walk into the real world with his manuscript.
Cane could only manipulate the real world from manipulations in his world he sends out in the real world. So at this point the manuscript still hadn't been delivered and Trent and the woman he went there with were still real in reality.
So Trent was pushed to leave Canes world and break open a doorway into reality that would allow Can direct control of reality as well.
Had Trent stayed and died at the hands of the monsters...in reality the manuscript would have not been found and Canes publishers would have sent another person to do the same as Trent.
But the moment Trent entered reality again...it was Canes. And Cane changed reality so that Trent had already delivered his manuscript earlier, to speed up the process for his creatures spreading.
I understand it to be that the entire movie of In the Mouth of Madness is Sutter Cane's book, In the Mouth of Madness. When Trent sits down in the theater at the end and he's watching the movie version, he's watching the movie we're watching.
In that regard, everything Trent goes through, from beginning to end, is Sutter Cane's work. It is kind of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" scenario, and you can really choose to go either way, but I like the idea that Cane wrote this entire story and was able to write anything he wanted, but since we're seeing it from Trent's POV, everything is subjective to him. From the moment Trent is brought into the the asylum at the beginning, to him telling the story, it's all Cane's writing. He's writing that Trent goes to the asylum, that he tells Wrenn the story, that he takes the job, goes to Hobb's End, returns, etc.
The story is that he is sent on this job to find Sutter Cane, discovers Cane's power, tries to prevent the book from returning and being published. But he can't leave it. Even when he does, Cane writes that everything he went through was for nothing because, no matter what, Cane was able to re-write history and say that Trent delivered the book. He's able to write that Trent doesn't remember delivering it (he probably didn't, but instead Cane wrote that Harglow remembers it that way and wrote the book into Harglow's possession), which, in Cane's writing, is just one more little piece that adds to Trent's insanity.
In other words, every last, minute detail that happens in the film is what Sutter Cane wrote into the book. Even when Trent thinks he's trying to go against Cane's will by destroying the book or leaving it behind or whatever, it's an extra layer of the book that Cane wrote to emphasize that he's in control; no matter what, all Cane has to do is write it, and that means he can toy with anyone, including Trent, by writing them to think they have the choice of deviating from the "set order of things".
My reviews and more random musings @
http://asinynepov.blogspot.com/
"what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
you know there's an actual answer to that. whatever creature eventually evolved into the first chicken, laid the first egg. so the chicken came first...........unless you don't believe in evolution then you're screwed. lol
Or even if you believe in creation.....chicken still came 1st.
"The eyes are the groin of the head."-Dwight K Shrute
Eggs were laid long before chicken evolved. Therefore egg is first technically.
But being a paradox, there isn't really an answer.
Since a chicken has to be born form a chicken egg and a chicken egg has to be laid by a chicken. It's a logical paradox, you can't bring evolution in the discussion, also because your understanding of evolutionary processes seems lacking and your previous answer doesn't make sense.
*Eggs were laid long before chicken evolved.*
............egg was laid by who?
"The eyes are the groin of the head."-Dwight K Shrute
Pretty much any non viviparous multi cellular organism on earth?
shareoh I see, than out popped a chicken?
"The eyes are the groin of the head."-Dwight K Shrute
My posts were answering the guy above you btw.. sorry about the mixup.
And yes, my point is since he said that " whatever creature eventually evolved into the first chicken, laid the first egg. so the chicken came first", but wouldn't the egg from which the first chicken was born be a chicken egg already? And so on and so on. Because single organism don't just 'evolve' in their lifetime you know.. Therefore the paradox (and question) would still be valid and unanswerable.
Or, in a broader sense,since eggs(not chicken's) already existed, the egg is first.
I believe in evolution but I DON'T believe in eggs. Just whackadoo heathen """"""science"""""".
And to answer the OP's question, the entire film it turns out is fake! I thought this was a documentary like the 4th Kind or that movie with the cars, but after doing some research it turns out it was all lies!! I'm very angry that Jack Carpenters misled us and tried to make us into dumb-dumbs.
I HATE MOVIES!!!!
Jack Carpenter....Brilliant! :)
"I kept it in a cage,
watched it weeping but I made it stay"
www.watcheditweeping.com
Regardless of the length of time it takes for creatures to evolve, there was a FIRST "Chicken" to lay an egg originally. In fact, what chickens were before they evolved into chickens, whatever that is, very well could have laid eggs as a means of reproduction, and therefore, whenever that creature evolved into a chicken (its just a matter of debate when this creature was no longer what it used to be whatever it was prior to being a chicken - basically, when was this creature no longer considered to be the creature it evolved from into a chicken - remember, every living creature on this planet came from a single celled organism), then it officially laid the first "chicken egg." Also, you are missing one huge thing as well and thats cross breeding. Its possible the first chicken was born like a mammal, but then itself laid an egg. So, yeah..maybe not stating whether someone else understanding of evolution is lacking when you yourself clearly arent positive yourself about something.
shareGod created the first chicken which laid the first egg and so on. God also "created" first humans(adam and eva) and animals. I don´t believe that we were apes!
share[deleted]
sutter cane laid the egg
shareWhat if 2 animals (not chickens) created an egg, then that egg became a chicken? ..crossbreeding?? ...i would say after that egg, then we had other chickens.. so the egg came before the chicken
shareWhat if 2 animals (not chickens) created an egg, then that egg became a chicken?
Then explain mules.
share'Eggs were laid long before chicken evolved'
What's your credible source?
The thousands of dinosaur eggs found in pretty much every museum that has anything to do with dinosaurs
The birds we call chickens (Gallus domesticus) are only around 8-10k years old as a species, ocean life was producing eggs before non-plant life even made it onto land.
In fact even if we look at amniote eggs (the type of eggs chickens lay), we have found fossilised versions dating over a hundred million years (Late Triassic era) which pre-dates what we know as chickens by an extremely long way
The thousands of dinosaur eggs found in pretty much every museum that has anything to do with dinosaurs
The birds we call chickens (Gallus domesticus) are only around 8-10k years old as a species, ocean life was producing eggs before non-plant life even made it onto land.
In fact even if we look at amniote eggs (the type of eggs chickens lay), we have found fossilised versions dating over a hundred million years (Late Triassic era) which pre-dates what we know as chickens by an extremely long way
the thousands of dinosaur eggs
No we are talking about what came first and the answer is clearly eggs because eggs have existed long before chickens and the first ever chicken would have still hatched from one. Even if you don't believe in evolution (despite plenty of evidence to support it) we have found lots of eggs that predate chickens by a very long way
shareWow the post I'm about to quote is so full of false information. A lot of posters in this thread clearly have zero understanding of how life & reality works. And they clearly also have never read and/or understood the Bible.
Eggs were laid long before chicken evolved
Since a chicken has to be born form a chicken egg and a chicken egg has to be laid by a chicken.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
whatever creature eventually evolved into the first chicken
unless you don't believe in evolution then you're screwed.
Sorry I'm two years late on this, but I think you nailed it perfectly. Sam Neill's laugh while watching the film still haunts me. It's the kind of funny that works that much more if you're privy to the information he has finally learned in the movie, that he is a character, always has been... manipulated by Sutter Cane with the belief that he could change something that was predestined / preordained. One would think that you would kind of stop caring at the moment that you realize that you're an imaginary construct the imagination of someone else. Going to check out your blog now!
share[deleted]
well since they deleted my post, i guess someone got upset...funny. lmao
gotta love the internet and its "i dont like what you say so you're wrong attitude". i mean its one thing to argue against a point, but to actually go and delete it....hilarious.
Wait you don't believe in evolution?!? Even the church admits evolution is a fact now. It's easily provable in a laboratory setting. You do understand that evolution does NOT say that man came from apes don't you?
Oh no! We broke Mom's favorite vase playing basketball in the house!
- Darth Vader Brady
[deleted]
Hmmmm, it seemed you were stating that evolution was untrue.....but it appears a post of his may have been deleted that I didn't see. Oh well, we can all agress then that evolution is true....and the scene in the Creation Museum in Kentucky where a tricerotops is wearing a saddle is decidedly untrue. So we have that.
Oh no! We broke Mom's favorite vase playing basketball in the house!
- Darth Vader Brady
[deleted]
which came first...
[deleted]
In truth, the egg came first (in general) and there is no arguing about that.
If Time is simultaneous, than how can you travel to different parts of it?
This thread is hilarious.
If you had a time machine, you could visit events/periods in the past as it was happening.
Right at this moment, Rome is burning.
At this moment, Titanic is sinking.
At this moment, Lincoln got shot.
Of course evolution is true. What with science being an observation of nature and people were there millions/billions of years ago to film and document this adds to proof. Also I threw a grenade on a pile of strings and wood and violins popped out of the explosion so nothing blowing itself up could blatantly create everything.
there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and the nothing magically exploded for NO REASON creating EVERYTHING
and then a bunch of EVERYTHING magically rearranged itself for NO REASON WHAT SO EVER
into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
Makes perfect sense.
I freaking love science.
You are your own god.
Everything comes from nothing.
There is no God.
Do as thou wilt.
[deleted]
we can all agress then that evolution is true
Even the church admits evolution is a fact now.
It's easily provable in a laboratory setting.
Nothing we see in the movie until Trent leaves Hobbs End ever actually happened outside of Sutters novel. In the beginning he's a fictional character in a novel within a novel. When he goes to Hobbs End he goes up a level. When he leaves Hobbs End he finally enters reality, bringing the madness with him.
Trent who delivered the novel is the basis for the character we follow through the film. But he is not the same person who we follow. Ya dig?
Also, take note of the huge shift in characterization and dialog that occurs when they first get to Hobbs End. In the first part of the movie, the dialog is pretty cheesy and Trent comes off as kind of sexually aggressive. But all of that vanishes as soon as they reach Hobbs End. They moved up from the "bad" novel within the novel, to the actual novel.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!