I have not read the book but I imagine it makes sense if you've read it.
Why is it relevant? Who's the bald guy?
Also, what is the very last scene with the alternate universe ball?
And who was North (Doug Jones)? Was he from Korrok's world? Why didn't he have a mask?
Huge spoilers..
The alternate Earth was creating duplicates of people which were exactly the same, including memories. Sometime after they were sent over and replaced the original, they were 'activated' and became monsters. One of the biggest moments was when (bigger spoiler) Dave realizes that he has been replaced and doesn't know if he's the same person.
If by bald guy you mean the headless guy, he's just some undead skinhead.
North was a genetically engineered creature from Korrok's world that didn't look human at all, but was taking on the appearance of one. Only the humans were wearing masks. But they were probably genetically modified, too, like everything else.
and no redemption, by the way..
Spoiler:
Thoughout the book Dave has lapses of memory where he is not sure what he was doing or where he was. He realizes he has a dead body in his shed. He finds out at the end the dead body his him and he is just a clone "monster dave" and he murdered the real dave.
The paralell universe was just for comedy but the shadowmen who were omitted from the book were opening these portals from a different dimension and invading our world but only people on the sauce could see em like the alien in the cage in Dave's car.
Now you've just ruined the book for me.
When you said "Spoiler" I thought "No problem, I've just watched the movie so I can read this." You should have said it was a spoiler for the book's ending!
[deleted]
Actually the FINAL ending scene has Dave and John back on the "normal Earth" basketball court and then those young idiot kids go into the portal all excited about having an adventure, and then come back within seconds having completed the adventure -- while Dave and John would rather chill and shoot some hoops. Normal life, please.
- - -
Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.
[deleted]
That's your own fault. He started his post with "throughout the BOOK...." that obviously told you he was about to talk about the book, not the movie, so quit whining.
shareI guess what you described was part of the book, because it wasn't in the movie at all, unfortunately. I still liked it, but the plot left a fair amount of loose ends.
shareIt's in the two years between the "real" movie and the interview. Doesn't mean much of anything other than trying to confuse you.
shareThought I had COMPLETELY misinterpreted the movie until I realized that much of this was left out. How the hell could the screenwriter or editor have missed that?? I really enjoyed the movie having not read the book, and now I'm glad I hadn't read it first, as I feel I would have been disappointed. Thanks for clearing this up, however.
shareBasically, since the individual parts of the axe were replaced, is it technically the same axe that slated home dude?
The reason that question is proposed is becuse It's supposed to parallel Dave's situation. Since he was "replaced" is he really Dave?
I'm not sure why it's in the movie. Makes no sense given that they removed that whole plot.
the axe thing is Theseus' Paradox. Theaseus posed the question that if, over time, all the wodden parts of a ship were replace is it still the same ship?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Yep, it's a 'thought experiment'. Look up a book called "The pig that wants to be eaten"...
shareI haven't read the books so I just took it as it was presented. If the handle and the blade have both been replaced, is it really the same axe?
Want to help me get my own film off the ground? http://igg.me/at/xmas/x/2165717
It's a thought experiment that's derived from the ship of thesis. The answer kind of just depends on what you think the right answer is. For example, my interpretation is that it does not matter whether or not it is the same axe. The only thing that does matter is its function. If you were to replace a person with an identical duplicate that had the same function, the world would not care. Like the movie the prestige.
shareTheseus*
you heard someone say it once but must've never actually read about him.
Everybody is wrong it seems. The question is a trick because he wasn't murdered with the axe, he was shot. The implications of this on the movie seem to be what this discussion should be about.
shareIIRC originally the story said "that's the axe that slayed me" but was changed to "beheaded me" to clear that up.
and no redemption, by the way..
That's what my buddy said. It wasn't the same axe that slayed him, because he was SHOT!
Coming Soon... The December Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qj7fRpcXRI
Ah, but Dave cut off his head because he knew the guy would revive...
So...
If you slay someone with a bullet, but you know he will come back so you cut off his head, is it the same "slay"?
www.brucekahn.net
Be there or be.... not there.
by tzaqaree » Sun Mar 10 2013 22:58:59
my interpretation is that it does not matter whether or not it is the same axe. The only thing that does matter is its function. If you were to replace a person with an identical duplicate that had the same function, the world would not care. Like the movie the prestige.
I heard it as an old joke. Some farmer shows a guy a hatchet and tells him that it is the same hatchet George Washington used to cut down the cherry tree. Yep, he says, the handle's been replaced 5 times and the head twice but that's Washington's hatchet!
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
The opening scene is put on the viewer hard and fast. It poses a seemingly simple question but gives you a TON to ponder over for a long time afterwards. This movie unexpectedly blew my mind in its first 5 minutes in more ways than any entire movie I've seen. I thought is was brilliant, you could just take it at face value and it's still very entertaining.
But I like to think, and the movie was not kidding that by answering this riddle it will unlock the secret of the universe.
My own take on the axe riddle and its implications:
By having its parts replaced, did the axe cease to be the same axe? If you replace all the parts that make you YOU, have you become something else in the process? That was already covered in previous posts, but it goes far beyond...
Our bodies are made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, (adinfinitum)--none of which had originally belonged to us, all of which are constantly being replaced anyway. So we're all interconnected in the web of life yet we each have our own individual consciousness. So where is the soul in all this? If we are all just recycled energy, then why are we here to observe and question life so subjectively? Is this just a side-effect of having an individual complex mind? If so then I wonder what kind of consciousness a mind of an even higher organization might have, and if such a mind does/can/will exist. Of course, that doesn't simply limit us to our three dimensional view of the world either.
I can get very philosophical about this. Is it the same axe? Yes or no, and follow all its ramifications down the chain of logic... but really it's the Big Question that each one of us must ask ourselves in order to form our own beliefs because science and logic alone cannot (and might not ever) prove it either way.
What does it all mean indeed!
-"But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen..."
why do they call it an ax when it's clearly a hatchet?
sharePosing a philosophical question:
The ax is used to behead a man (actually a corpse but that's irrelevant).
The ax handle breaks and is replaced.
At a later time the ax head requires replacement, so...
the parts of the ax are not original, so...
when the bald guy declares "THAT'S the ax that..."
it poses the question of whether or not the ax has an "essence" that allows it to be the same ax even if parts are replaced.
In the context of the movie, if a person is replaced, in part or in whole by...uhm, non-original parts, is the person still the same person?
A few decades back there was a legal issue involving just this. I believe it was a case in Massachusetts where a man accused of murder posed this defense:
The law stated that death occurred when a heart no longer beat with out mechanical assistance. The defendant was accused of murdering a person whose heart was subsequently transplanted into another person. Since that person was alive and the heart was functioning normally, the victim was not "dead" per the legal definition of death.