|
Post by Trinity on Nov 13, 2003 21:19:12 GMT -5
I have ANOTHER theory. One that hopefully has no holes (but poke away, see if you can find any). OK, here goes. There was no gun swap. OK, I'll let you read it again. There was no gun swap. By the time the history of the gun in the sweeper killings is revealed, Preston is already working with the resistance. The easiest explanation is they have a mole in Tetragrammaton forensics/technicians who could falsify the evidence to keep Preston in the clear and frame Brandt. The reaction by Brandt and the reference back to the execution moment earlier were just Brandt's attempt to account for what to him was a genuine shock at that moment. Oh, I love this one. This is one of the best explanations I've read to date. Thanks, iolair! ;D
|
|
|
Post by the Grynch on Nov 17, 2003 19:44:54 GMT -5
Preston shoots the sweeper team because he has to. Later, in the factory raid he beats to death the other soldiers as opposed to killing them 'cos he knows that he would then certainly be traced via the bullets and his verifiable presence at the location (with the previous sweeper team he can always so he was elsewhere and how would anyone say otherwise). In the execution scene, Brandt gives Preston the perfect opportunity for Preston to get rid of his own gun. therefore - no hole in the script. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, bro, but it is, indeed, a mistake. While it's your opinion and theory that Preston beat them to death to avoid being traced by the bullets he WOULD HAVE used on them, the fact still remains that his bullets could still be recovered from the sweeper team. I myself am (obviously) an EQ fanatic, and I've gone over every single possible theory, from the writing mistakes, to editing mistakes, to "well, maybe Preston was just hoping, and the screen on DuPont's office was fake, and only said that to convince him," and I've finally decided that Wimmer just messed it up. Pretty badly. While the movie's probably one of the most incredible I've ever seen, this mistake is, just as Brandt says, "the worm that has been eating the core." It's too bad Wimmer let a mistake like that seep into his 1st movie. Personally? I think it's a writing/editing mistake. But, regardless, no matter how well you argue this issue, you can always argue or question it. Although my theory is that Preston should've switched the guns while sitting on the hood of his car, pre-dog pen scene, then it'd make a helluva lot more sense. Of course, that then begs the question, "why the hell would he switch them in the first place?" I don't know why. I don't know why Wimmer messed up his script. Do you? Probly not. All in all, I couldn't care less. Sure, it DOES bug me, but it's so minute compared to that kick-ass action! I also really liked Cruis.In's ideas. Good game, man. Did that one person make it to the convention and get to ask Wimmer personally? That'd be phat titties if we could hear it from the man himself.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Nov 17, 2003 20:15:37 GMT -5
Did that one person make it to the convention and get to ask Wimmer personally? That'd be phat titties if we could hear it from the man himself. I was at the convention & not a single person asked Wimmer about the gun swap after about an hour of questions.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Nov 18, 2003 10:54:21 GMT -5
The Gun Swap isn't something I actually noticed, until it was pointed out here, I was just way too caught up in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Nov 19, 2003 19:52:10 GMT -5
The Gun Swap isn't something I actually noticed, until it was pointed out here, I was just way too caught up in the movie. Me, too; the first several times I watched EQ, I was so caught up, that I was on my feet cheering that Brandt was being led away for Summary Judgment and Combustion. (Imagine my chagrin when he shows up later...argh!) Then, like the fifth time or so that I watched it, I did notice the discrepancy. Of all the explanations, I really liked iolair's above.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Dec 7, 2003 6:30:12 GMT -5
Hi, Im new here, I just watched equilibrium for the second time, and went online looking for a discussion about the gun swap problem. Im sorry if someone has already posted what Im about to say, I skipped over some of the thread posts because I just didnt have time to read them all... but this is what I realized about the gun swap...
Preston did, in fact, give Brandt his gun at the execution scene. He did this to set Brandt up, so that Brandt would get caught with Preston's gun later. Now, about the trace scene in DuPont's office - I say that they did a trace at that very moment on the gun that Brandt had on his person... maybe those guns have radio frequency ID tags, I dunno, but I think the computer was able to check at that very moment the ID of the gun on Brandt's person, and they saw that it matched the bullets that they had recovered from the nether murder scene (puppy scene). I guess they did ballistics testing on the bullets before, put the results into the computer, and then in the office the computer was able to check instantly that Brandt's current sidearm matched those ballistics results.
It doesnt matter that the bullet *cartridge* in the gun said "Preston" on it - agents probably give each other ammo cartridges all the time. The gun itself was the important item that got Brandt caught red-handed. The fact that the cartridge said Preston on it just served to remind Brandt that it must've been the gun that Preston gave to him at the execution scene - it does not indicate that that's Preston's gun! The reason the movie made a point of showing that Brandt saw it say "Preston" was just to puntuate Brandt realizing that it must've been the gun Preston switched on him. I dont think each gun is registered to each agent, like in Judge Dredd. The fact that there was any attempted gun switching at all implies that the guns are free to be swapped. They just must have IDs that can match them to bullets fired from them.
Now, if you believe my explanation, the question that might pop into your head is: after Brandt exclaims 'he switched them, I have his gun now!', why does Preston then turn to Brandt and say 'of course you have my gun, you took it when you arrested me...' I think Preston was just being sarcastic... Brandt is caught red-handed with the murder weapon, and he tries to blame it on Preston... so Brandt looks pretty silly at that moment.
Now, you might also wonder, when Brandt arrested Preston, why wouldn't he have, in fact, taken his gun away... that would explain why Brandt had it at that moment. But if that were the case, then Brandt should have presented it as evidence as soon as he walked into the office, instead of just keeping it on his person as if it is his own gun. Its not like an agent confiscates evidence and then forgets about it. So Brandt was caught red-handed, he had the murder weapon on him at that moment, and never mentioned that it wasnt his gun until they actually pointed the finger at him... too late! Brandt looked pretty guilty right then, which is why he sounded ridiculous when he tried to explain that it was actually Preston's, and so Preston made fun of him to add insult to injury.
So I think the movie actually did make sense and had no plot loop hole. Its only problem is that maybe it didnt make everything clear to the viewer - and that you could blame on the editing. But better a movie with a twist - albeit a confusing one - than a simplistic movie like the matrix (begin pie throwing now).
oh, and as far as why the cartidge had Preston's name on it, but had those things pop out of it in the close-combat scene, and why the cartridges had rounded bottoms when he was coming for DuPoint... different types of cartridges for different purposes! Obviously the rounded-bottom ones were made to stand up and balance themselves like that for just the purpose that Preston used them. Maybe Preston even carried several guns on him with different types of cartridges, and pulled out whichever gun he needed in a particular fight.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Dec 8, 2003 3:11:00 GMT -5
Also, maybe Tetragrammaton never ran a trace of cleric guns right after the murders because it didnt occur to them that it could've been a cleric. They assumed it was the resistance. Thats why Preston wasnt freaked out earlier that they would catch him.
And I think the reason that he did not shoot the soldiers in the close combat scene (the fight right before the executions) is that it would've been harder to shoot all the soldiers when he was surrounded that close... he had barely any room to aim - so he just kept wacking them to keep them off balance so they couldnt get a shot at him... until he finally beat them all up.
Hellooooo, is anyone still interested in this?
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Dec 8, 2003 7:50:04 GMT -5
Hellooooo, is anyone still interested in this? Hi Bob & welcome!! Sorry but I think some of us are numb to the "Gun Swap." This is a subject that has been kicked around here to death so many of us really have made up our own minds & moved on. Its difficult because people who've just discovered the film want to discuss it but the real answer is that currently there are no answers just theories. You've made some excellent ones yourself but until Wimmer himself actually makes a comment on this its still all conjecture. I happen to be one of those ones that just doesn't really care. No film explains everything & I don't think they ought to, JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 8, 2003 7:58:51 GMT -5
My own 2 cents about the Gun Swap is, that I don't really care if there was one or wasn't, I love the movie and for me little details never matter in a film. I guess I'm just there to have my fix of action and story, be entertained.
I find if I look way too deeply, I lose the sense of entertainment.
So I'm one of the ones who's pretty numb to the idea.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Dec 8, 2003 8:06:05 GMT -5
So I'm one of the ones who's pretty numb to the idea. This whole thing somewhat reminds me of that scene from Galaxy Quest... You really have to be a "fan" to understand that flick. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 8, 2003 8:11:35 GMT -5
*ROTFLOL*
I remember that, one of my favourite movies!
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Dec 8, 2003 12:27:05 GMT -5
This whole thing somewhat reminds me of that scene from Galaxy Quest... You really have to be a "fan" to understand that flick. ;D Absolutely, 100% right JenGe. I've only got the video of GQ not the DVD and it's pretty much worn out (have to admit to being a 3-decade trekker). I don't care about the GS either. I spent 3 years at uni stripping Shakespeare down to syllables.Over analysis can be a killer. Now I find that while it's exciting to discuss stuff with other knowledgeable folks, sometimes it's just,well, a matter of.. "Faith" "I assume you have it?"
|
|
|
Post by MacFeegle on Dec 10, 2003 3:25:36 GMT -5
Hey Guys. I watched EQ for the first time yesterday, and then the second and third, and again today. lol. Just trying to catch up on missing out I guess.
Anyways, I found this discussion and I know you may have closed the episode on this but I think I might have a reasonable explanation that may fit a little better with some.
The gun swap does not happen at the car, Preston uses his own gun to kill the sweeper team and then swaps with Brandt to give him the murder weapon, hence the right hand-left hand scene at the execution, it is *not* a continuity error which is why it is made obvious again later. The line "I think in the end, it is better that you have it" refers to him handing off the murder weapon, his own gun. I mean, if he had Brandt's gun after the car scene, why did he not just start shooting straight away?
The scan shows the location of the murder weapon, with Brandt, "He switched them, see I have his gun...now". I think Preston's response is meant to be sarcastic as has been stated before, "Of course you did, when you arrested me" but it's a little hard without emotion to get that tone you would normally use.
To my mind, problem solved, no problem with the gun swap happening later on, he is ditching the evidence. And those who try to debunk it by saying it was in the Nethers, well by implication so is Brandt at the time of the sweeper kill, we see him as Preston enters, then the Sweepers (plus Brandt) follow him in.
Awesome movie regardless and I can guarantee it will be gracing my shelves very soon.
Cheers guys.
Mac.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Dec 10, 2003 20:28:11 GMT -5
The scan shows the location of the murder weapon, with Brandt, "He switched them, see I have his gun...now". I think Preston's response is meant to be sarcastic as has been stated before, "Of course you did, when you arrested me" but it's a little hard without emotion to get that tone you would normally use. You know...I actually think that you are on to something here. The biggest problem I think with the gun swap is that we really do not know how a weapon is traced in Libria. Many have assumed in would be the normal method by the gun or the bullets being tagged but you reminded me of something. Wimmer stated on a number of occasions that he based much of the film on Judge Dredd. Now if I remember correctly they traced & used the guns through the DNA holding the weapon. The trace used in EQ could be completely different then what we assume. Thanks for making me think about this dumb subject again!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 10, 2003 20:30:23 GMT -5
*arghs*
Now they've gotten me at it too, *scribbles notes for his House story* *ponderponderponder*
darn it.
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Dec 11, 2003 12:59:24 GMT -5
Aaaagh! I said I didn't care about the GS earlier, but...IMHO... remember the commentary KW gives about the execution scene? He had it planned right down to the number of steps Preston takes to walk in and out. He had the positions of all the protagonists laid out exactly. It was a pivotal scene. The camera angles were deliberate. We were meant to see Preston take the gun with his right hand and return A gun with his left. It's a continuation of the 'plot holes' thread, that I think KW actually credits his audience with intelligence.
My head hurts! (perhaps my ears are too tight!)
|
|
|
Post by SO katerbug on Dec 11, 2003 17:11:40 GMT -5
i'm watching EQ for the 3rd time right at this moment and just passed the execution scene. i'm confused why long haired moustachioed resistance fighter nods at him. the gun swapped always confused me as well. not sure if it happened at the execution (tho they made sure to show both hands and both guns and right and left ect) or on the car when preston was loading the mags and handed brandt the gun. my brain can't take much more. hehehe
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 11, 2003 17:17:40 GMT -5
The nod was a show of respect, it was the fighter saying to Preston - you tried but in the end, this is how it's going to be, don't worry about it...you tried.
|
|
|
Post by SO katerbug on Dec 11, 2003 17:27:56 GMT -5
thanks. but it clearly was a yes and a no. what was the significance of that? yes to what? no to what? thanks for your help
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 11, 2003 17:57:49 GMT -5
I think the nod from the resistance fighter was a yes nod, a nod of respect as I said.
Yes you tried, and you did your best. That's the kind of vibe I get from that exchange.
As for the Gun Swap itself...it's something that's just made me numb, so I try not to think about it, heh.
|
|
|
Post by MisterAnderson on Dec 11, 2003 18:04:38 GMT -5
I agree with the Wolfmeister, plus...
It could also reflect the fact that he (the resistance guy) might have believed for a second that Preston had led them into the trap, and by handing the gun back to Brandt....he was proving that he didn't lead them into the trap.
Thus he was also nodding his understanding of this.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 11, 2003 18:08:25 GMT -5
Yep Mr.A, that's another line of thought...
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Dec 11, 2003 18:51:09 GMT -5
You know, this is another of those KW moments. He's not going to spell it out/dumb it down or whatever, but allows you to see it on whatever level you want. For me, it's where Preston has the choice he didn't have in the Nethers.
Brandt hands over his gun (and I refuse ever again to think about the GS) and Preston looks round, doing his Cleric thing and sizing up the opposition, considering if changing from lock to auto/semi, considering if he can take out everyone -when that everyone includes another Cleric.
He's already wiped out a Sweeper Team over the puppy, so he's pretty much burned all his boats and bridges anyway. The resistance guy knows what he's planning and shakes his head. You can see the indecision in Preston's eyes, that little tremble of his chin. Then he sets the gun back to lock and hands it back. The resistance guy nods, as Wolf says, in respect for what Preston tried to do and acceptance of his fate. I think it's a really powerful scene.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 11, 2003 19:10:55 GMT -5
Yep Libby It goes back to my plot hole comment, I am glad there is this ambiguity, because there are some truly stunning theories and ideas. With these missing pieces, Wimmer has made us think and he's also allowed us to have some input into his world - as fans.
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Dec 11, 2003 19:37:54 GMT -5
Very true. I am getting dizzy running round these threads tonight!
|
|
|
Post by katerbug on Dec 11, 2003 23:18:35 GMT -5
thanks for all the great input. i'm loving this forum btw. lots of great stuff here.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 12, 2003 6:16:22 GMT -5
Very true. I am getting dizzy running round these threads tonight! It's the Post Katas you see, I have the skills to leap from one thread to the next, avoiding the usual flamers and only remark to the people who rock
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 12, 2003 6:17:10 GMT -5
thanks for all the great input. i'm loving this forum btw. lots of great stuff here. Welcome to the Underground...
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Dec 12, 2003 7:37:43 GMT -5
It's the Post Katas you see, I have the skills to leap from one thread to the next, avoiding the usual flamers and only remark to the people who rock *blushes at inferred compliment* But I, being new, have only my mouse.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Dec 12, 2003 7:42:56 GMT -5
You will learn Libby, you will learn as you become a Grammaton 'Post' Cleric. Your insight in this particular thread, is most welcome, some good points
|
|