The Butterfly Effect

The point with the scars on his hands is that when he changes the timeline HE is the only person to see/remember the changes/ differences.

When he goes back and changes the past to get the scars the future he arrives back at should have been altered so that he had the scars his whole life.

Therefore the guy in the cell would have already been aware of them - not "watching them appear"

They ignored that so that he would be "converted" and help out. Ignoring the films own ideas for the scake of a plot device. Or in other-words, Bullshit.

The butterfly effect was an interesting idea, but badly presented and self contradicting.

As to Kutcher, I find it easier to believe in time travel than I do Kutcher as a grade A student: the guys a buffoon.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
The only trouble Evan ever had were his black outs, otherwise, he was a great kid. Not one that would consciously inflict bodily harm on himself. Like I said, when he did that, he knew full well what he was doing, as it was an adult Evan who travelled back to a segment of a young Evan's life.

Good kid but a little traumatized..

-His friend killed his dog
-He saw his dad killed before his eyes after he tryed to strangle him
-Blackouts
-Was filmed for a child pornagraphy video at age 7
-Saw a mother and her child get blown up by a stick a dynamite he was somewhat responsible for
-His best friend killed herself
-One of his friends has serious mental problems from the dynamite iccident he caused
-One of his friends had serious anger problems and has been causing trouble for Evan

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
He did it consciously, to prove a point in the future. He was only young in body, not mind, when he went back to elementary school.

What ?! The point is that doing that as a child would have had huge effects on his life and thus the ' plot ' yet he still ends up in prison. Like the other poster agrees, even if he had ended up in that same prison he would already have had the scars and so wouldn't have been in that cell...don't you see that ? Slamming his hands down on those nails in the school - from that point on everything would have changed yet it doesn't. All that happens is the guy in the cell sees that scars appear when they weren't there earlier..yet they would have been because they were made in childhood !!! It has some nice ideas but doesn't really stay true to what the theory of the butterfly effect is all about. It gets lost in itself, plot lines become crossed and the ending is poor.

Yes he would. He wouldn't already have had the scars before he got to prison, because he hadn't

Spoiler:
slammed his hands down on the paper pins.

Can't show someone what you don't already have.

How serious can a Science Fiction movie about time travel be, when you're forced to totally suspend reality? I thought the human emotional aspects of the movie were very credible, which was honestly the only thing that could be fairly critiqued.

Guess we'll just agree to disagree. You didn't like it, and I'll respect that.

What was the point of that post ? 🤨

Originally posted by Stormy_Day
What was the point of that post ? 🤨

I ' quoted ' him and put my post under the part of his post i wanted to reply to

Originally posted by Alec Cawthorne

What ?! The point is that doing that as a child would have had huge effects on his life and thus the ' plot ' yet he still ends up in prison.

The point is to trick his cellmate into thinking he had just witnessed a stigmata. Who's to say how he would turn out? You're making assumptions that have no basis or relation to the actual movie.

Like the other poster agrees, even if he had ended up in that same prison he would already have had the scars and so wouldn't have been in that cell...don't you see that ?

What do his obtaining scars have to do with him landing in prison? According to this particular movies logic, he wouldn't have the scars before he landed in prison, because he warped directly from the prison, to elementary school, and back to that same prison again, only this time with scars.

Slamming his hands down on those nails in the school - from that point on everything would have changed yet it doesn't. All that happens is the guy in the cell sees that scars appear when they weren't there earlier..yet they would have been because they were made in childhood !!!

Much like Mr. Zero's observation below, it's a deus ex machina, something miraculous and sometimes seemingly ignorant, to move the story along. It happens in movies all of the time.

The point with the scars on his hands is that when he changes the timeline HE is the only person to see/remember the changes/ differences.

Originally posted by Stormy_Day
Good kid but a little traumatized..

Notice that he didn't do any of those things, which was kind of my point. He himself was a good kid, who was infact the victim in many cases, which is why his paper pin and drawing incidents were so shocking to his teacher.

Thats why I said TRAUMATIZED i didnt say he did it 😉

Cinemaddiction -

He goes back several times in the film to change events that haven't turned out as he'd hoped for. He travels back, changes something and then when he returns to the time he travelled from things are different. Yes ? For example, he travels back, tells Kayleigh he hates her and when he returns his life his different..he's never known her at all but both of them are safe and well.

He goes back to his childhood and slams his hands down, puts holes in his hands and when he returns nothing has changed apart from he has scars on his hands ?! He's still ended up in prison ?!!

As i said earlier it's one of many holes in the film and i don't think even Hitchcock could have got away with it ( he himself admitted there are holes in most of his films, like North By Northwest, but the direction is such that they go ' unseen ' )

I still dont see where your going with thise your examples didnt seem like they had holes in it 😕

Originally posted by Stormy_Day
your examples didnt seem like they had holes in it 😕

DUDE! Where's my past?

Our point is that he changed his childhood so that he had scars on his hands. He therefore had scars on his hands HIS WHOLE LIFE. His cellmate would have been aware of them since the day they met.

Irrespective of whether that would have been the only change to his life - we will assume he would still have ended up in prison at that same point he returned to.

Even allowing for that, the "changed future" would not have been him in prison with those scars "miraculously" appearing, they would have been there all along, so the conversation would have gone.

Kutcher: "Dude, I can like totally convince you I am chosen by God! - keep watching my hands"

Cellmate: "Your hands with those old scars you have had since childhood.. ok.. I'm watching"

Kutcher: "Oh yeah, um... downer... didn't think of that..."

Understand? Within the logic that the film itself had set up this makes no sense, it goes against the rules the film itself has established.

Which showcases that this is a very dumb and shallow movie trying to disguise itself as something smarter.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
The point is to trick his cellmate into thinking he had just witnessed a stigmata. Who's to say how he would turn out?

According to this particular movies logic, he wouldn't have the scars before he landed in prison,

Much like Mr. Zero's observation below, it's a deus ex machina

Mr Addiction,

As I've been trying to point out, according to this films own logic he could not have used this to trick his cellmate because the film had already been at great pains to set up that in changing the past he changed the entire timeline - he was the only person to remember both/all the timelines and it was rotting his brain.

After scaring himself he would have returned to a time when his cellmate would have seen he had stigmat scars from the moment they met as they had been there his whole life.

This isn't a deus ex machina - because although they strain credibility they are at least feasible within the context. This scene in the film completely contradicted it's own rules and logic, which is shoddy writing in the extreme.

Anyone actually concentrating on the the film should have given up in despair after this stupidity.

I know your coments were not directed at me but perhaps you might think about that before saying personal things like "if you had paid attention" and "it's abundantly clear you didn't understand it." to those of us who spotted the films inconsistencies.

Im sorry but he wouldnt have had them his whole life 😬 I cant explain it but since he skipped back to the present his cellmate saw them appear right then.

Originally posted by Stormy_Day
Im sorry but he wouldnt have had them his whole life 😬 I cant explain it but since he skipped back to the present his cellmate saw them appear right then.

What don't you understand? He spent the whole movie going back and making changes that altered his entire timeline from that point onwards

That was the "point" of the film. He didn't skip back to "the present" he changed his entire life - in this instance the change was simply 2 scars.

Am I not making myself clear?

Back off dude just because you think that doesnt mean everybody else has to.Am I making myself clear?

All im saying is that the scars appeared right then and its not that far fetched if you used your head.

Originally posted by Stormy_Day
All im saying is that the scars appeared right then and its not that far fetched if you used your head.

Sorry if you took it personally I wasn't trying to suggest you were stupid - I honestly thought I wasn't explaining what i meant clearly enough - I hadn't realized that you simply didn't care that it made no sense. My bad.

Originally posted by Mr Zero

I know your comments were not directed at me but perhaps you might think about that before saying personal things like "if you had paid attention" and "it's abundantly clear you didn't understand it." to those of us who spotted the films inconsistencies.

Understood, but Alec wasn't too concise in making his point, initially assuming that he was going to go to prison all along, when there wasn't anything suggesting such in his childhood.

Originally posted by Stormy_Day
Thats why I said TRAUMATIZED i didnt say he did it 😉

Oy. Yes, but since he himself didn't do those things, there is nothing to suggest that he, by his adolescent actions, would someday wind up in jail.

I think everyones points and feelings involving the movie have been made clear.

Finally. It's flawed, but what Sci Fi movie isn't?

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Finally. It's flawed, but what Sci Fi movie isn't?

I know what you mean - my friends and I call this "filling in" where you have to make allowances for inconsistencies in plot and logic: Not just in sci-fi either, but it is more common there as it sometimes relies on fantastical notions.

Case in point - Pitch Black: A film I very much enjoyed but at the very beginning was left wondering what the odds of a spacecraft crashing on a planet JUST before the total eclipse were - staggering.

In my head I quickly thought "well, perhaps the once every few decades alignment of the planets is what moves the meteors into the shipping lanes and causes the crash"

Easy - wish they had said that in the film but no big, and i enjoyed the movie.

But if a script can't be true to it's own rules and I can't even begin to work out why on earth something would have happened then I cease to care about the characters.

Originally posted by Stormy_Day
Im sorry but he wouldnt have had them his whole life 😬 I cant explain it but since he skipped back to the present his cellmate saw them appear right then.

He doesn't just ' skip ' back !!!

Every time he travels back and changes something, the whole timeline is effected - thus after he goes back to the ' past 'and says to Kayleigh that he hates her and hopes he never sees her again, when he returns to the ' present ' he doesn't know her..their whole lives have been different because of the change in what he said.

So when he travels back to put the scars on his hands from that point on that timeline is different..he has scars on his hands for the rest of his life. Thus his whole life from that point would have been different ( his mother would have treated him differently, he would have received counselling etc his whole life would have been different ). But for the plots own sake nothing changes..he returns to the same jail cell and the same inmate notices that there are now scars are on his hands ?!!

As i said, there are many classic films out there like North By Northwest that contain " plot holes " but they are such good films with such good acting and direction that they go generally unnoticed. The Butterfly Effect has too many plot holes, isn't acted well enough and has sloppy direction..it's a 2 star film at best.

Originally posted by Mr Zero
DUDE! Where's my past?

Our point is that he changed his childhood so that he had scars on his hands. He therefore had scars on his hands HIS WHOLE LIFE. His cellmate would have been aware of them since the day they met.

Irrespective of whether that would have been the only change to his life - we will assume he would still have ended up in prison at that same point he returned to.

Even allowing for that, the "changed future" would not have been him in prison with those scars "miraculously" appearing, they would have been there all along, so the conversation would have gone.

Kutcher: "Dude, I can like totally convince you I am chosen by God! - keep watching my hands"

Cellmate: "Your hands with those old scars you have had since childhood.. ok.. I'm watching"

Kutcher: "Oh yeah, um... downer... didn't think of that..."

Understand? Within the logic that the film itself had set up this makes no sense, it goes against the rules the film itself has established.

Which showcases that this is a very dumb and shallow movie trying to disguise itself as something smarter.

Thankyou ! 💃

It goes against the rules the film has established and the whole theory of the butterfly effect itself.

I personally think it's a film that 15's and under might appreciate. One of those films where you shouldn't take popcorn with you to watch it, you should take a huge pinch of salt 😉

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Understood, but Alec wasn't too concise in making his point, initially assuming that he was going to go to prison all along, when there wasn't anything suggesting such in his childhood.

I wasn't initially assuming that he went to prison all along..look at my posts and those of Mr Zero

Oy. Yes, but since he himself didn't do those things, there is nothing to suggest that he, by his adolescent actions, would someday wind up in jail.

I think everyones points and feelings involving the movie have been made clear.

Finally. It's flawed, but what Sci Fi movie isn't?

So apart from all these huge plot holes you think the film is good ? That's fine. Sorry for any misunderstanding !