|
Post by Tzen on Mar 24, 2003 9:03:01 GMT -5
I would like to start by saying that Equilibrium is an excellent movie and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, the plot holes (specifically the infamous "gun switch") have kind of been picking at my brain lately.
There is another possible plot hole that bothers me. The resistance had bombs planted all over Libria before Preston ever began to rebel. I don't remember if it was specifically stated, but I assume that the bombs were planted at Prozium factories/distributors. Why did they not just set them all off to begin with? Would it not have caused enough of a disruption in the supply to deprive the majority of atleast one dose?
Maybe I missed something. I need to watch the movie a few (hundred) more times. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Mar 24, 2003 9:32:16 GMT -5
My theory is when Brandt and Preston are talking outside after the beethoven scene, the sweeper tells them about the dogs out back and that's when Preston loads the one gun and gives it to Brandt. I think that's when he switched them.
|
|
|
Post by Roy on Mar 24, 2003 9:44:36 GMT -5
My theory is when Brandt and Preston are talking outside after the beethoven scene, the sweeper tells them about the dogs out back and that's when Preston loads the one gun and gives it to Brandt. I think that's when he switched them. Bingo!
|
|
|
Post by Tzen on Mar 24, 2003 9:48:30 GMT -5
Yeah, that was my only theory about the gun switch as well. Preston seems to do it rather intently, and Brandt looks a bit suspicious if I remember correctly.
However, my post was not really about the gun switch. =P
|
|
|
Post by -mark- on Mar 24, 2003 10:08:22 GMT -5
They didn't just set the bombs off cuase they had a plan that included a Cleric, specifically Preston I think....they wanted him on their side and we're waiting for the right time to make their move....only Preston could get to DuPont so they needed him.
|
|
|
Post by Tzen on Mar 24, 2003 10:16:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess so. I guess "Father" would have been able to manipulate them long enough to get some more Prozium churned out.
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Mar 24, 2003 14:06:51 GMT -5
They were probably planning to use the bombs sooner or later, but taking out the factories AND Father is a double hitter! All the better.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 24, 2003 3:45:14 GMT -5
Back to the gun switch.
I'm confused now. How does the switch you guys mention fit in with the one that occurred when the rebels Preston was attempting to rescue end up executed? There's a quite obvious switch there.
|
|
|
Post by Tz3n on Mar 24, 2003 7:03:08 GMT -5
He must have switched the guns back in that scene becuase he killed the sweeper team before that particular swap. I guess that wouldn't make sense that Brandt had Preston's gun later on when Preston says he took it when he arrested him. Unless he really did, I guess.
So basically:
Before the dog massacre, Preston gives Brandt his gun and takes Brandt's for himself. Then Preston whacks all those guys. Then he switches them back before the executions. Then Brandt takes Preston's gun when he arrests him.
I really don't buy that last bit, though, because it's implied that he didn't really take Preston's gun when he arrested him.
BTW, I tried to register the name Tzen but I never got an e-mail with the password in it. Maybe I wrote my e-mail wrong, it's zach@zero-respect.com. Can you check that out, please?
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 24, 2003 11:42:54 GMT -5
Hey Tzen, I just tried a test resister and I didn't get an e-mail either. I'll look into it for you.
BTW, you e-mail addie is correct so the problem is on this end not yours.
Get back to you...
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 24, 2003 19:51:35 GMT -5
*********SPOILERS*********
Ok, now that I've got that password thing somewhat resolved I want to get back to the gun switch.
It seems clear to me that it occurred during the execution of the rebels against the glass block wall. Brandt hands Preston a weapon to execute them into his right hand. As Preston is considering his options at some point the camera slowly pans behind his back from the right side to the left. When Preston hands a gun back to Brandt its one from his left hand, not in his right.
|
|
|
Post by Spider AL on Mar 24, 2003 20:33:08 GMT -5
I have returned. Ello. I too pondered the "gun switch" for a while, after my second trip to the cinema to see the film. I came to one possible explanation: Since they show you the instance when Preston refuses to execute the sense-offenders against the glass-brick wall as Brandt says "he switched them" I first concluded that that was indeed the moment he switched the guns. Well, with this in mind here's one possibility I considered: That the Cleric's guns contain some sort of homing device that tells the Grammaton system where it's been. This is borne out by Brandt's statement that if DuPont should "check the tracer on his firearm" (Hope my quotes are fairly accurate, can't wait for screenplay to come online for reference) he will "see that he (preston) was with the sweeper team when they were killed." Sounds like he's referring about a tracking device there... So since Brandt's been carrying that homing device around with him since the switch, and it's been wherever he's been, that would be enough to convince the system that HE was with the sweeper teams when they were killed, not Preston. But this theory has its own problems, not least the question of why such a device wouldn't carry a serial number showing that the gun was issued to Preston, not Brandt. A second possible theory is that Preston didn't switch guns, but merely a locator / homing device on the butt of the gun. This would perhaps place the record of shots fired and/or locations visited into the gun, without changing the unique identifier or serial number. One problem with this is that Brandt says "I have HIS gun now" but that could be explained away if one thinks say... that Brandt was referring to the identity of the gun rather than the whole gun. Oh, and good explanation Tzen, as good as any. After all, this is a sci-fi movie, and who knows what systems the Cleric have in place to identify firearms. It's a minor plot hole, if indeed it is one. But if it's not a plot hole, It is at the very least badly explained. I wonder if we'll ever hear from Kurt Wimmer whether he moved the switch scene or anything.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 24, 2003 20:43:29 GMT -5
I guess I just see things different because I love when films leave puzzles like this to mull over; loose ends with no tidies. It gives me something to think about long after seeing it. If a movie tells me everything there really is nothing to solve through reason, deduction, and interpretation. I enjoy figuring things out and adding my own spin. In a sense creating my own identification with it.
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Mar 24, 2003 21:10:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spider AL on Mar 24, 2003 22:10:30 GMT -5
JenGe, absolutely. None of my favourite films have ever been so obvious that they didn't beggar a little deduction as to the meaning of certain aspects after I finished watching them... If it was an unintentional plot-hole however, it's a little annoying. Only a little though. ;D It's hardly important enough to mar the experience. BMaloney: Yes, hence the possibility that it was merely the recent record of the location and movement of the firearm that DuPont brought up on screen. Then it wouldn't matter when Preston killed the sweeper team, as the gun's location would tally with Brandt's location and all his doings since the gun was switched, etcetera. Then only one switch (at the firing squad) would be necessary to explain it. There are serious problems with that theory though. It's tenuous in many respects, re. unique identifiers in the firearms as mentioned above, etc. It's a conundrum alright.
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Mar 24, 2003 22:35:20 GMT -5
In national news today, i'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 24, 2003 22:44:18 GMT -5
**********Spoiler!!!************* Simple...its meant to confuse... Preston was only fooling himself (and us) by these actions since he was actually railroaded into them anyway. He never had to switch the gun because they knew all along who it was. They put him there. The switch was only for his (and our) sense of security. They only played along with his actions to further manipulate him (and us). See...we're still being manipulated!!! Now that's storytelling!!
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Mar 25, 2003 0:13:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kingdaywalker on Mar 25, 2003 0:23:34 GMT -5
that is the explanation i have come to believe, but it doesnt make sense to show the flashback that brandt is having unless they just wanted to mess with the audience which a mean trick, in my heart though i believe their has to be a different explanation or it is a plot hole.
|
|
Feline
Resistance Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Feline on Mar 25, 2003 4:05:05 GMT -5
Ugh. I see you have done that bad thing. Started the plot hole discussion. There are ALWAYS plot holes in these kinds of movies. Matrix had holes, too, and Matrix had a better developped plot than Eq.
- How did his kids manage to sneak away the meds when his dad was all that good at discovering feelings? He was THE BEST, d**nit. - How could the resistance count on a cleric turning against the system like that? (referring to the bombs planted but not set off discussion) How could they know that a cleric would lose a dose, then encounter a queue/stop at the Equilibrium and then choose NOT to replace it alltogether? Too many coincidences for the resistance to rely on. - Why didn't Brandt find it unsettling that "Father" had such lively surroundings with paintings and such when he was the "world leader" and feelings led to irrationalities like war? Brandt's lost his emotions, not his god d**ned brains, and he already speaks of not compromising. He should have no CONVICTION to let "Father" live when he's sort of a senseoffender, because such a powerful conviction would have to be based in feelings.
BUT!!! Why analyze the movie to death...? Only ruins it.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 25, 2003 9:03:44 GMT -5
See I don't think I ever view unexplained aspects of films as "plot hole." Every film has something not presented completely to us. But for me that is the fun of it. To fill in my own blanks. To take the dots given and create my own picture. Erase that take the same dots and make a completely different image.
For me, personally, analyzing a film doesn't ruin it, it heightens the experience.
|
|
Feline
Resistance Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Feline on Mar 25, 2003 10:43:58 GMT -5
True enough.
But then again; enjoying some simple pleasures often turn out better than to dissect them and end up with something "meh".
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Mar 25, 2003 16:47:38 GMT -5
I don't think the Resistance was basing all their plans on Preston.. The Resistance Leader said he'd been watching him for some time so yeah. I think the resistance was going to let the bombs go and such and just having Preston on board was a perk and they would have continued without him anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Dazza on Mar 25, 2003 19:37:20 GMT -5
The film was probably cut down for running time reasons leaving a couple of little plot holes. Im looking forward to the dvd release that will hopefully clear it all up. Anyway Equilibrium still kicks!
|
|
Feline
Resistance Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Feline on Mar 26, 2003 2:00:14 GMT -5
I don't think the Resistance was basing all their plans on Preston.. The Resistance Leader said he'd been watching him for some time so yeah. I think the resistance was going to let the bombs go and such and just having Preston on board was a perk and they would have continued without him anyways. No? Because they wouldn't set the bombs off before Father was dead, and they couldn't kill Father without someone on the inside helping them. I don't mean that they were counting on Preston only, but on a feeling cleric on the whole, to fill the gap in their plan; to get rid of Father. Oh, and agh! The ever so annoying "cut down for running time" reason. This thing really annoys me. I mean. So many movies would probably be so much better if they hadn't been cut down. Possibly, a lot of movies would have ended up crappier, too, though.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Mar 26, 2003 7:56:43 GMT -5
Hey Kingdaywalker, I just wanted to let you know that I absolutely love your avatar!!
NICE!!
|
|
|
Post by koalabear on May 6, 2003 23:08:54 GMT -5
Feline's points make me go: "Hmmmm yes .... good point". I agree that it was a big gamble on the part of the Council. Why didn't Preston suspect his wife? Is it possible that she wasn't guilty of any crime at all but that the Council deliberately arrested her because they knew that Preston had a predisposition towards emotion and this action would therefore set him on the path towards rebellion? Then again, as Feline mentioned, there were a lot of steps along the way before Preston the Enforcer becomes Preston the Resistance Fighter: - wife arrested and killed; - partner commits sense crime; - Preston accidentally misses dose and is unable to replace the dose; - Preston meets Mary etc etc. One question I have was - did Preston "deliberately" miss his dose? Was it subconscious perhaps? Didn't he say to his son that he never takes the dose out before he brushes his teeth? The gun-swapping incident still has not been explained to my satisfaction, I fear. Neither has the explanation for how two little kids are able to fool everyone around them (including Preston) into thinking that they are dosing when they are not. It doesn't detract from my enjoyment - just makes me hmmmmm and wonder
|
|
Tzen
Resistance Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by Tzen on May 8, 2003 6:10:09 GMT -5
Preston could have switched them back at the execution scene. Infact, the only true FACT about this whole mess is that the guns ARE swapped during that scene.
If you assume that Preston swapped them at the car and swapped them back at the executions, then you must assume that Brandt did indeed take Preston's gun when he arrested him, as Preston claims.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on May 8, 2003 8:37:15 GMT -5
Why didn't Preston suspect his wife? I think the key here is when Partridge states, "You always knew." Preston is and has been in major denial. I think the look on her face tells us that she was quility. On CHUD Wimmer mentioned that he left this one ambiguous on purpose. He didn't want Bale to "play" it one way or the other and let us decide. I've thought from the first time I saw EQ that Mary was a plant. Hey!! I just realized something... if Mary was a plant that would explain the lipstick!!
|
|
|
Post by Spider AL on May 9, 2003 9:32:30 GMT -5
Fact? Hey, just because he uses his left hand to give Brandt a gun, doesn't mean it was the gun he had in his left hand in the previous shot! He might have juggled them below the camera angle. ;D
|
|