If Cole knew about the kid in the barn
How come he didn't remember that some lunatic with his name kidnapped a psychiatrist? It seemed to follow that story on all the news shows.
shareLOL at all the ridiculous attempts in this thread to rationalize this blatant error. A kid would absolutely remember a series of prominent news reports about a manhunt for someone suspected of murder and kidnapping, and who was eventually killed in a shootout in an airport, to which he was a witness and who has the exact same name as him. Even if he didn't see any of the numerous reports on TV about it, he would have heard about it from other people, especially from other kids such as at school. Kids would have a field day with that.
The idea that anyone not living under a rock, could ever be unaware or forget that they share a name with a famous or infamous person is patently absurd. The fact that other people exist ensures that they will not only hear about it, but they'll hear about it far more than they'd like to. Just ask anyone with the name Charles Manson or Ted Bundy ... or Michael Bolton, for that matter.
It's possible to be blind to certain trends in the media cycle. I knew someone who was writing a Tom Clancy-esque military thriller where the main character, a hardened government spy, was named Jeff Foxworthy.
share"It's possible to be blind to certain trends in the media cycle."
Once again:
"Even if he didn't see any of the numerous reports on TV about it, he would have heard about it from other people"
And:
"The fact that other people exist ensures that they will not only hear about it, but they'll hear about it far more than they'd like to."
"I knew someone who was writing a Tom Clancy-esque military thriller where the main character, a hardened government spy, was named Jeff Foxworthy."
If that person you knew was named Jeff Foxworthy then they certainly would have heard of the celebrity of the same name, to the point of nausea. There is a huge difference between simply not having heard of a famous/infamous person, and not having heard of a famous/infamous person who shares your full name. Nearly every time someone new finds out your name they are going to mention the association or otherwise react to it. Watch the movie "Office Space" which has a character named Michael Bolton. It is like that in real life for everyone who has a famous/infamous name.
No, the guy had no idea who Jeff Foxworthy was. No one had ever mentioned it to him in his decades of existence until I brought it up one day.
share"No, the guy had no idea who Jeff Foxworthy was. No one had ever mentioned it to him in his decades of existence until I brought it up one day."
I said, "If that person you knew was named Jeff Foxworthy then they certainly would have heard of the celebrity of the same name, to the point of nausea."
In other words, you gave an invalid example. Your example would only be valid if the person you knew was named Jeff Foxworthy, and had never heard of the famous comedian of the same name.
Then take the example of former schoolmate of mine named Richard Simmons, who made it as far as college before anyone bothered to show him some aerobics videos.
shareThe only way I'd believe that he first heard of the celebrity Richard Simmons in college is if Richard Simmons didn't reach the height of his fame until your schoolmate was in college. Also, do you suppose he'd remember Richard Simmons' name if he saw him get shot in an airport? Be kind of hard to forget the name of someone you saw get shot, when he has the same name as your own.
shareHe was homeschooled and didn't get out much.
Also, there was no information that established child-aged Cole was hungrily following news reports following his witnessing a stranger gunned down by law enforcement.
"Also, there was no information that established child-aged Cole was hungrily following news reports following his witnessing a stranger gunned down by law enforcement."
You don't have to follow news reports, you would inevitably find out from other people even if you never watched TV, listened to the radio, or read a newspaper. Him being there would be a big deal among his friends and family, and the idea that not once would it have been mentioned that the dead guy has the exact same name as him, is absurd. On top of that, this guy had already been in the news for a few days, wanted on suspicion of murder and kidnapping, and he would have already heard about it from that. You think some guy named James Cole can be all over the news for a few days and a kid named James Cole isn't going to hear about from anyone? And you think that after that, James Cole can see James Cole get shot, and still not find out his name? That's absurd.
Arguing that something is technically possible doesn't justify an implausibility in a movie. Suppose some guy in a movie is trying to break into a safe which has a 16-digit combination. He decides to take a wild guess at what the combination might be, and guesses right on his first try. Is it technically possible? Of course. But is it plausible? Not even remotely, which means it's bullshit and will cause disruption of the audience's suspension of disbelief. Stuff that causes disruption of the audience's suspension of disbelief = bad writing.
You ignore two big things.
1. His parents probably did everything to prevent him from hearing the news after the accident in the airport. In the first few days he was probably at home or on vacation and did not meet other children.
2. Days after the accident, the media and public agenda changed dramatically. Millions of people started dying, and the news stopped talking about the case of kidnapped a psychiatrist.
Combined with the Cassandra Complex, this makes it possible that James never heard about the kidnapper with the same name.
"You ignore two big things."
So 5 years ago I was ignoring your unsubstantiated "probablies" that you just made up out of whole cloth 2 hours ago? How does that work, exactly?
I'll repeat my original post on this topic, since nothing has changed:
LOL at all the ridiculous attempts in this thread to rationalize this blatant error. A kid would absolutely remember a series of prominent news reports about a manhunt for someone suspected of murder and kidnapping, and who was eventually killed in a shootout in an airport, to which he was a witness and who has the exact same name as him. Even if he didn't see any of the numerous reports on TV about it, he would have heard about it from other people, especially from other kids such as at school. Kids would have a field day with that.
The idea that anyone not living under a rock, could ever be unaware or forget that they share a name with a famous or infamous person is patently absurd. The fact that other people exist ensures that they will not only hear about it, but they'll hear about it far more than they'd like to. Just ask anyone with the name Charles Manson or Ted Bundy ... or Michael Bolton, for that matter.
What the hell it's matter if it's 5 hours ago or 5 years ago??
I just tell you to take into account two things. You decide not to refer my two points.
"What the hell it's matter if it's 5 hours ago or 5 years ago?? "
Because 5 years ago I couldn't have possibly ignored something that you hadn't made up yet. Now, if you'd pointed out something relevant that was actually established in the movie (as opposed to some "probablies" that you invented), that I'd ignored, then you would have had a point.
"I just tell you to take into account two things. You decide not to refer my two points."
You didn't have a point at all, let alone two. You made up a couple things that, even if they were valid, still wouldn't have resulted in a kid not being aware of the guy's name who he saw get killed in a shootout at the airport, especially when it was also his own name.
Imagine this: suppose a kid witnessed Adam Lanza get killed. And supposed the kid's name was also Adam Lanza. Do you really think that any amount of parental sheltering and not seeing anyone else for a few days would prevent the kid from ever finding out Adam Lanza's name? Not only would the kid inevitably find out sooner than later, but it would also soon become a big annoyance for him, because just about everyone he meets for many years to come is going to react when they find out his name, which, from the kid's perspective, would get old fast.
He heard about what happened to the kid in the barn but not about the woman who was kidnapped, or maybe he heard about the case but not the name of the kidnapper. This is a fact. As a kid, he probably felt a greater emotional connection with the boy's story than with the kidnapping that went over his head. Second, it seems that the public and local discourse focused more on the child than the kidnapped woman. So, yes, I think there is a big chance he didn't know or remember the case.
Regarding the airport, you ignore (yes.. ignore) the historical context of the movie. Things that happened later are very important. As I said, there is a big chance that in the first days after the accident, his parents kept him from watching the news, so he didn't know the name. Second, days after the airport case, people started to die all around the world. Do you think someone would care about a kidnapper with the same name as him when billions of people were dying in the streets?!? A few months later, 99% of the population was exterminated, and there is no child or adult left to mention the coincidence.
"So, yes, I think there is a big chance he didn't know or remember the case."
Again, that's absurd. He was a witness and the guy had the exact same name as him. You have to be daft to think he'd never find out the guy's name.
"Regarding the airport, you ignore (yes.. ignore) the historical context of the movie."
No, I'm not. The "historical context" (which doesn't include the stuff you made up) doesn't matter.
"Things that happened later are very important. As I said, there is a big chance that in the first days after the accident, his parents kept him from watching the news, so he didn't know the name."
A "big chance"? Based on what? Name the scene, line(s) of dialog, or anything else from the movie that establishes this "big chance" / "probably" that you keep talking about.
When adult Cole first enters the airport at the end he said he remembered being there as a kid about a week before people started dying. So you think his parents, based on nothing but your sheer speculation, prevented kid Cole from watching TV, listening to the radio, or talking to anyone for the next week straight at the very least, even though school would have been back in session 6 days after the airport shooting? LOL @ that.
And then you think that, as if by magic, suddenly no one ever thinks or talks about the kidnapper who was shot to death in the airport a week earlier because people start dying from an illness, even though it wouldn't have even been very big news to begin with, because as Cole said earlier in the movie, "First they'll think it's just some weird fever."
On top of that, prior to the airport shooting, adult Cole had been a prominent news story already due to kidnapping his psychiatrist and the ensuing manhunt for him; they kept showing his mugshot on the news. I suppose you think kid Cole missed all those news stories about a guy who had the same name as him too, even though he vividly remembers the news stories about the kid who was supposedly trapped in the well, and remembers the outcome (the kid was actually hiding in a barn). Those were airing on the same days as the kidnapping story, so I guess you imagine that he followed the kid-in-the-well story but somehow managed to miss all the kidnapping stories even though they would have aired during the same newscasts. And you also imagine that, in addition to always missing the kidnapping story, no one at school or anywhere else ever pointed out to him the big story on the news about a kidnapper with the same name as him. LOL at that (again).
It's established in the movie that his excellent memory is one of the reasons he was chosen for the mission, so he wouldn't have forgotten the story, especially with the "coincidence" of the guy having the same name as him. In addition to remembering the kid-in-the-well-prank news story from his childhood, he also remembered the voicemail phone number, and could quote the message that Kathryn left on it word for word after only hearing a recording of it one time.
The idea that he never knew the name of the guy who he saw get shot in the airport, and who was repeatedly on the news regarding the kidnapping, is utterly implausible, and implausibilities in a work of fiction = bad writing.
Again, that's absurd. He was a witness and the guy had the exact same name as him. You have to be daft to think he'd never find out the guy's name....
A "big chance"? Based on what? Name the scene, line(s) of dialog, or anything else from the movie that establishes this "big chance" / "probably" that you keep talking about.
The whole discussion is hypothetical, so I don't feel the need to rely on specific scenes from the movie, only present reasonable arguments.
I believe it's likely that James didn't know the name of the person at the airport. I base this on the short time between the incident at the airport and the start of the virus. The airport accident, at best, would have stayed on the news for 2-3 days. It's highly plausible that his own parents immediately after they left the airport tried to shield him from the news to prevent further trauma. In a world without cell phones and internet to every child, such measures were feasible to protect a child. This is what I will do if I was them.
And then you think that, as if by magic, suddenly no one ever thinks or talks about the kidnapper who was shot to death in the airport a week earlier because people start dying from an illness, even though it wouldn't have even been very big news to begin with, because as Cole said earlier in the movie, "First they'll think it's just some weird fever."
Again, people start dying, consumed by fear and anxiety as they are engulfed in chaos and uncertainty - at this stage, no one cares about the kidnapping. Moreover, very soon, they will all succumb to the virus, and there will be no one left to tell James about the coincidence. The impending devastation leaves no room for trivial matters like a kidnapper sharing his name; survival becomes the sole concern.
His good memory is meaningless if he didn't hear the kidnapper's name. Without the crucial piece of information, his exceptional memory becomes irrelevant. share
"The whole discussion is hypothetical, so I don't feel the need to rely on specific scenes from the movie, only present reasonable arguments."
Sheer speculation, also known as "fan wanking," is invalid and can legitimately be dismissed out of hand. Only arguments based on onscreen events are valid.
"I believe it's likely that James didn't know the name of the person at the airport."
It's the opposite of likely, i.e., it's implausible.
"I base this on the short time between the incident at the airport and the start of the virus. The airport accident, at best, would have stayed on the news for 2-3 days."
It was a guy who had already been on the news for a while due to the kidnapping and manhunt for him. That makes it an even bigger news story. Most people would already be familiar with him by the time he made the news again by being shot and killed at the airport.
So you're imagining that kid James Cole never saw the news stories about adult James Cole being wanted for kidnapping, even though he saw the news stories about the kid in the well which aired during the exact same newscasts as the kidnapping story. And furthermore, you're imagining that no one at school or anywhere else said to him something like, "James, I hear you're wanted for kidnapping." That's implausible, therefore, bad writing. After the first kidnapping story aired he would have heard about it dozens of times because he has the same name as the kidnapper; that's just the way people are.
And then after the shooting at the airport, which he witnessed, he would have heard about it more than ever. The idea that his parents would, or even feasibly could, block him off from all forms of communication until no one talked about anything other than the virus is utterly absurd.
According to the movie the virus was released on 12/27/1996, and it was about a week later when people started dying, and at first people thought it was "just some weird fever." School would have been back in session on 1/2/1997, which fell on a Thursday, and was only 6 days after the shooting / virus release. If by some implausible miracle he hadn't already heard the name of the guy killed at the airport before then, he absolutely would have heard it at school on 1/2/1997, and far more than once. And then, because when people start dying on about the 3rd, it wasn't taken seriously at first (because it was thought to be "just a weird fever"), he would have plenty more days to hear about it at school as well.
Newspapers were still being printed at least as late as 12/31/1997, so the world didn't descend into chaos nearly a year prior on the day that people started dying from "just a weird fever."
Boromir has you beat. Your entire argument hinges on things we aren't shown on screen and could happen a million different ways, home school, society shut downs, school starts late, parents trying to shelter young Cole from a traumatic experience, Cole only seeing one news broadcast, Coles own mind protecting him, a time travel paradox. His memory is also not infallible and we are shown that fact in the film.
share"Boromir has you beat."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Your entire argument hinges on things we aren't shown on screen"
That's comically ironic, considering that's exactly what Boromir's argument "hinges on," i.e.:
"His parents probably did everything to prevent him from hearing the news after the accident in the airport. In the first few days he was probably at home or on vacation and did not meet other children."
"and could happen a million different ways"
It doesn't matter what technically "could happen;" what matters is what's plausible. Even if his parents wanted to prevent him from hearing information about the shooting he witnessed, and they were successful at it for the amount of time that it was making the news, that doesn't account for the next few weeks or months where it's practically inevitable that he will find out the guy's name, due to it being his own name as well, obviously.
If a movie is going to rely on something other than a typical course of events (like your "million different ways" stuff that you're pulling out of thin air) to explain something, then it has to be noted onscreen in some way; otherwise its implausible and therefore bad writing.
"His memory is also not infallible and we are shown that fact in the film."
It doesn't need to be infallible. In fact, it could be below average and he would still remember something as memorable as a guy he saw get shot, and who was wanted for kidnapping, having the same name as him; he would have heard about it from other people many times.
Boromir has you beat.
"That's comically ironic, considering that's exactly what Boromir's argument "
You had already dragged the argument out of the context of the film by demanding things that weren't shown or brought up on camera be explained.
"It doesn't matter what technically "could" happen; what matters is what's plausible."
That is ridiculous. Time travel wasn't explained in the film, there are many things left out to keep the narrative moving. Not to mention what happened to Cole at the end happens everyday in Philly.
"then it has to be noted onscreen in some way; otherwise its implausible and therefore bad writing."
I really want to read your screenplays that go on and on and on with minutia. They sound exciting.
" In fact, it could be below average and he would still remember something as memorable as a guy he saw get shot, and who was wanted for kidnapping"
He believes what he is remembering about the event is a dream. That is a point the movie makes and Cole wouldn't necessarily believe he could be part of his own past.
We don't know if he knows that the guy who got shot is the guy wanted for kidnapping and we don't know if he even knows about the kidnapping. We have to assume young James is watching the same news programs as future James, which means we must again travel outside of the film to get agitated.
"Boromir has you beat."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, again.
"You had already dragged the argument out of the context of the film by demanding things that weren't shown or brought up on camera be explained."
That doesn't even make sense, and since it obviously doesn't address what I said (it would first have to make sense in order to have any hope of doing that), your tacit concession on that matter is noted.
"That is ridiculous."
You don't know what you're talking about.
"Time travel wasn't explained in the film,"
Is that a joke? Time travel is part of the movie's premise. People from 1996 not acting like ordinary humans (such as by not ever saying anything about the name "coincidence" to kid Cole) is not part of the movie's premise. To "explain" kid Cole not ever knowing the name of the guy he saw get shot in the airport, you have to resort to contrived "fan wanking." Something being "technically possible," however unlikely, doesn't get the writer off the hook for bad/implausible writing, regardless of how many apologists think it does.
If a good writer wants, e.g., "He was home schooled!" to be the explanation, then he inserts a line of dialog where adult Cole mentions that he was home schooled, because home schooling is far from the norm, so it doesn't go without saying like going to public school does. The same goes for all your other unlikelihoods.
"I really want to read your screenplays that go on and on and on with minutia. They sound exciting."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and also, you don't have a clue about this topic.
"He believes what he is remembering about the event is a dream."
That's a ridiculous bit of writing too, but regardless of that, when he gets to the airport near the end of the movie he remembers being there as a kid, for real, not as a dream.
"We don't know if he knows that the guy who got shot is the guy wanted for kidnapping and we don't know if he even knows about the kidnapping."
So you think it's plausible that he managed to follow the kid-in-a-well stories on the news, but, every time, he also missed the stories about the kidnapping that were featured in the exact same newscasts? That's absurd.
"We have to assume young James is watching the same news programs as future James, which means we must again travel outside of the film to get agitated."
We don't have to assume anything. We already know that kid Cole was watching the news, because he said he followed the reports of the kid-in-a-well. When adult Cole first heard the kid-in-the-well report, he was in the car with Kathryn who he had recently kidnapped, which means the kidnapping stories were being reported at the same time as the kid-in-the-well stories. Furthermore, since his name was James Cole, he definitely would have heard about James Cole being wanted for kidnapping, at school and from most anyone else who knew his name.
Cassandra complex is one of the explanation why James have trouble to remember anything that involved his time travel adventures. Two time dimensions colliding together probably creates confusion and memory problems. Remember he got shot in WW1, so if your theory true, as a kid he needed to remember this part to.
share"Cassandra complex is one of the explanation why James have trouble to remember anything that involved his time travel adventures."
No it wasn't. "Cassandra complex" has nothing at all to do with that. It's about knowing that something bad is going to happen and trying to warn others but no one believes you:
The Cassandra complex is a psychological phenomenon in which an individual's accurate prediction of a crisis is ignored or dismissed. The term originates in Greek mythology. Cassandra was a daughter of Priam, the King of Troy.
Also, the shooting at the airport would be a normal childhood memory, no different than his childhood memory of the kid who was supposedly trapped in a well, not a "time travel adventures" memory.
"Remember he got shot in WW1, so if your theory true, as a kid he needed to remember this part to."
My "theory"? It's not a theory that people remember highly memorable events, it's a fact. Also, you're thoroughly confused, since nothing I have said has even remotely suggested any such thing. Kid Cole wouldn't remember being shot in WWI because that happened to adult Cole, not to kid Cole, obviously. share
You’re ignoring some pretty basic information here.
You keep acting like the newscast with the kidnapping report being the “same newscast” as the one with the boy-in-the-well hoax is some kind of smoking gun and that if young James saw the story, he must’ve seen the other in the same newscast. This ignores the fact that many different newscasts can cover the same event. He could’ve very easily seen a different one.
The “same newscast” aside, you seem to be operating under the assumption that if James heard about the boy on the news, then he must’ve also heard about the kidnapping case on the news. This is also fallacious. The boy in the well story could’ve been a national story and the kidnapping story could have been a regional/local one. The newscast earlier in the film alludes to this by mentioning something about the kidnapping story being “closer to home.” Why would he have not heard about the local kidnapping story? There’s no reason to believe he is a local to the Philadelphia area. He seems to have just gotten off a plane. Maybe he’s visiting relatives in town over the Christmas break. There’s no evidence to suggest he is a local of the area. If he and his parents lived in another state, he may have avoided encountering the kidnapping story. Obviously this is all speculative but so was your original point. There’s no reason to think that he heard the kidnapping story or heard of the other James Cole.
It’s really not that big of a stretch to believe that parents would want to hide their young child from trauma by not hiding the fact that the person they saw gunned down had the same name as their son. That “coincidence” would be freaky for anyone, let alone a young kid. To my earlier point, there’s no reason to think James’s classmates know about the story either.
"You’re ignoring some pretty basic information here."
No, I'm not.
"This is also fallacious. The boy in the well story could’ve been a national story and the kidnapping story could have been a regional/local one."
No, it isn't. An ongoing police manhunt for a mental patient who mysteriously disappeared from custody 6 years prior, and who has kidnapped a doctor, is automatically national news, obviously. And once said kidnapper was shot and killed by the police at an airport it would be an even bigger news story.
"There’s no reason to believe he is a local to the Philadelphia area. He seems to have just gotten off a plane. Maybe he’s visiting relatives in town over the Christmas break. There’s no evidence to suggest he is a local of the area. If he and his parents lived in another state, he may have avoided encountering the kidnapping story."
Is that a joke? His parents' car was parked at that airport; it literally shows them getting into the car at the end. Whether he just got off a plane or was going to get on a plane but canceled after the shooting is irrelevant, because people typically depart from, and then later arrive at, their same local airport, you know, the one that their car is parked at if they didn't get a ride there from someone else when they departed.
On top of that, when we first see kid-James his mother is saying to him, "Come on James, it's okay," which is the type of reassurance you'd give to a kid who's doing something for the first time. If they had just got off a plane, then kid-James had inherently already been in an airport / on a plane before, obviously.
"Obviously this is all speculative but so was your original point."
No, your speculation (which is actually "fan wanking") doesn't hold water (see above). What I've said is simply in accordance with "like reality unless noted."
"There’s no reason to think that he heard the kidnapping story or heard of the other James Cole."
Yes, there obviously is, and I've already thoroughly explained why.
"It’s really not that big of a stretch to believe that parents would want to hide their young child from trauma by not hiding the fact that the person they saw gunned down had the same name as their son."
It's not plausible that they would be able to do that, and I've already explained why.
"To my earlier point, there’s no reason to think James’s classmates know about the story either."
Uh huh. See above.