there's a clear anachronism in the movie's timeline - The Rock (1996) Discussion

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 2 years ago

Surely if he was "obsessed with the JFK assassination" he'd get that right ?

Anyway , they mentioned in the film He'd escaped from multiple prisons .
When Alkatraz closed they put him somewhere else , he escaped , stole the Keneddy microfilm ...

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

I find it really hard to believe that after escaping Alcatraz, Mason would have taken the time, effort and risk to find and steal this very important microfilm. How would that even be possible for someone who was a known fugitive? After escaping Alcatraz, I'm sure Mason was just trying to get back home to England or just stay hidden in the U.S. And what was he put in Alcatraz in the first place for if not for stealing the microfilm?

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

It's possible he had information about the JFK assassination before it actually happened. It's not like the microfilm necessarily depicted the event itself. It could have contained evidence of the conspiracy to commit murder.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

That doesn't make any sense that there would be any actual recorded government information about the JFK assassination before it even happened. If anyone in the government had that information about a future assassination of the President then they would have stopped the assassination from happening! And even if for some reason the assassination happened anyway many months if not more after someone in the government acquired this supposed information then the fact that it was from so long before the assassination would mean that it couldn't really actually prove the identity of the assassins. That could have changed in the time between the collection of this questionable intel and the actual assassination. Only intel from after the assassination occurred could definitively prove the identity of the assassins.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

You're being a bit too specific here. For instance, your second sentence implies that the US government wasn't responsible for JFK's assassination. The rest of your argument is just based on your very narrow view of what you think is on that microfilm. When the movie doesn't even bother to do so.

And if you really wanna be that picky, do you really think that Cage, looking at single frame of the microfilm with a magnifying glass can really see who killed Kennedy?

The whole thing is already absurd. I don't think this anachronism is as significant of an error as you're making it out to be.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

What I'm saying in the 2nd sentence is that if someone in the government had information about a future assassination of the President being plotted by someone else in the government then they would be able to stop those others in the government from pulling off the assassination. Of course I don't know exactly what's on the microfilm but the movie's implication is that the information is specific and clear enough to mean something to the average person. Why else would Goodspeed ask his wife if she wanted to know who killed John F. Kennedy? The answer wouldn't interest her unless it was specific and clear enough to really mean something to her.

Regardless of how significant or insignificant of an error this is, it still clearly is an error. And as I said in my first post, it may have actually been a deliberate error.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 2 years ago

if someone in the government had information about a future assassination of the President being plotted by someone else in the government

unless they were part of the team "in on it"
or maybe it was part of just such an investigation but they were unsuccessful in stopping it.
or someone let the assasination happen and kep the evidence for blackmail.

-------------------------
Also the Goodspeed ask his wife bit doesent mean the whole thing is revealed in that one frame he was looking at.
It could be a chapter heading "The Kennedy assasaination"

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

If anyone in the government was in on a future assassination of the President then they clearly wouldn't keep a record of that information. I find it very unlikely that someone in the government would have this information prior to the assassination without being able to stop it. And if they failed to stop it then at the very least they would know who did it and they would be able to bring them to justice after the assassination. Your 3rd suggested explanation sounds the most plausible except for the fact that this microfilm contains all of the nation's most closely guarded secrets. If someone kept this information for blackmail then they would have kept it on its own, separate from other national secrets.

Goodspeed asked his wife if she wanted to know who killed John F. Kennedy. From this we know that he had already seen definitive information on the microfilm about who did the assassination before he asked the question. A mere heading labeled "The Kennedy Assassination" would not by itself have indicated that the microfilm revealed the true assassins and so would not have prompted him to ask his wife that specific question.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

Maybe JFK was actually assassinated in 1961, and they had a puppet standing in for him until '63?

What? Could happen. The big question is, where was Jim Henson in 1961?

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1370) 2 years ago

This is the movie where there is apparently a carnival rollercoaster thrill ride underneath Alcatraz... You actually think anyone involved cared about the dates?

Feel free to imagine that this movie is set in a parallel universe, similar to our own, but where Alactraz closed in 1973 (and where the laws of physics are somewhat different too).

reply

[–] fc31 (5368) 2 years ago

Alcatraz prison was closed in 1963, so he had to escape before that. And he is in prison again at the time of movie. So there was a period between the 2 imprisonments that he was out and about.

Of course as for why he investigated things like JFK assassination during the time. Well, we don't know. Maybe he was sent by MI6 to look into it.

You are assuming he was locked up in Alcatraz for information on JFK, well, that assumption might not hold. Maybe after the assassination was when they decide to lock him up to throw away the key. Before that was for some other reason.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

I find it really hard to believe that after escaping Alcatraz, Mason would have taken the time, effort and risk to find and steal this very important microfilm. How would that even be possible for someone who was a known fugitive? After escaping Alcatraz, I'm sure Mason was just trying to get back home to England or just stay hidden in the U.S. And what was he put in Alcatraz in the first place for if not for stealing the microfilm?

reply

[–] fc31 (5368) 2 years ago

Speaking as a movie watcher and quoting from the end of the movie "The Jackal" from 1997:"Going back to the drop box, an operative with your experience with a clean passport a wad of cash. I'll bet if you had taken off, we never would have found you."

If he had left, they'd probably never have found him again.

But he was caught again, I imagine he was up to another high risk mission.

And what was he put in Alcatraz in the first place for if not for stealing the microfilm?

I don't know. Maybe he tried to stop the assassination of JFK. That would probably explain why he was in prison, and why after he escaped he was caught again on investigating who killed JFK. Think about it, FBI locked him up so nobody would find out.

JFK had Irish ancestry, maybe he was JFK's Irish cousin.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

It makes sense that the government wouldn't have been able to find Mason after he escaped from Alcatraz *if he just tried to lay low*. However, you claim that after escaping he could have found and stolen this extremely important microfilm. The claim that a fugitive from Alcatraz would not only have been able to find out where that microfilm was stashed but also been able to do so without being caught is clearly ridiculous. He clearly wouldn't have tried or even considered such a stunt after escaping from Alcatraz.

Why would Mason be put in jail for trying to stop an assassination? That's not illegal. And you don't have any good reason to assume that if he stole the microfilm after escaping from Alcatraz that must necessarily mean that he was imprisoned the first time for something having to do with the assassination. You have no basis for that assumption.

reply

[–] fc31 (5368) 2 years ago

Think about it, FBI locked him up so nobody would find out who killed JFK.

So who do you think killed JFK? The FBI, at least that was what the movie was implying.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

I think you're reading too much into Womack's concern over the microfilm. The FBI wouldn't have to be responsible for the assassination for Womack to be so concerned about it. His concern wasn't meant to indicate that his bureau was culpable for the assassination. And keep in mind that there were other important government secrets on the microfilm. Womack is concerned because of all those secrets.

If Mason of all people somehow actually knew who was really responsible for the Kennedy assassination prior to stealing the microfilm then there's no reason to assume that he of all people was the only one who knew. And you assume they could do all this to him without him revealing to anyone else what he knew about the assassination. Alcatraz was not the 1960s equivalent of Guantanamo Bay or a CIA black site. Furthermore, no federal prisoners were directly sent to Alcatraz. Alcatraz was specifically reserved for problem prisoners from other federal prisons. He would have had to have been in some other federal prison before being sent to Alcatraz.

And you still don't have any good reason to assume that if he stole the microfilm after escaping from Alcatraz then that must necessarily mean that he was imprisoned the first time for something having to do with the assassination. The movie doesn't provide any basis for that assumption.

reply

[–] fc31 (5368) 2 years ago

Alcatraz was not the 1960s equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. Furthermore, no federal prisoners were directly sent to Alcatraz. Alcatraz was specifically reserved for problem prisoners from other federal prisons. He would have had to have been in some other federal prison before being sent to Alcatraz.

First of all, you don't know that. Also what is your point about this anyway?

I give you a reasonable explanation. If you ask for evidence then you are losing it. If you don't buy it that is your problem.

Regardless, your initial post is already proven to be wrong. Now it seems you are just unwilling to face the fact that you were wrong.

That I have no time for.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

I don't know why you're saying that I don't know the things that I said in my last post that you're quoting here. I assure you that I do know these things. I've read several books about Alcatraz so I tend to know more about Alcatraz than the average person. My point about this is that Alcatraz was not a place that the government in the 1960s would send someone just because he knew too much about a sensitive issue. My point is also that in order to get sent to Alcatraz you would first have to be convicted of a federal crime, sent to a regular federal prison first and then transferred to Alcatraz for a specific reason. You can't even tell me what federal crime Mason would have even been convicted of in the first place if not stealing the microfilm.

You assume that your explanation of your theory is reasonable but I have clearly explained here why it isn't. I have explained why the movie's timeline of events is ridiculous and I have explained why your theory to explain the validity of that timeline does not square with the actual facts of the microfilm and the historical facts of Alcatraz.

I don't see how my initial post has been proven wrong in any way. You will have to explain how that is so because I don't see it at all. I can't be unwilling to face the fact that I was wrong when I can't even see how I was wrong.

reply