|
Post by Trinity on Jun 14, 2003 22:14:37 GMT -5
Hey, I believe the gun switch flaw was unintentional. Unfortunately. I think they messed up in the sequencing of the scenes, and may have noticed it in the end, but their budget did not allow for them to fix this. I believe they could have fixed it by taking out the scene where Brandt recalls the "switch" of guns prior to the execution. Perhaps they could even have inserted the scene where Preston loads Brandt's gun and hands it to him prior to the dog scene and the scene where Preston kills all of those men in the Nethers. I don't know. It just further emphasizes the limited budget with which our noble, human Director, Kurt Wimmer had to work with.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Jelena on Jun 20, 2003 6:50:00 GMT -5
The right one is when Preston takes Brandts gun that was on the white car (the sceene just before killing of all dogs). The switch of sceenes was a simple human error in cutting of raw material. ... or they wanted to see if we wached film properly. It can be very easy corrected anyway.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Jun 20, 2003 8:14:47 GMT -5
Maybe Kurt Wimmer was just "F....ing" with our minds...
|
|
|
Post by MrsPreston on Jun 20, 2003 9:24:46 GMT -5
Maybe Kurt Wimmer was just "F....ing" with our minds... Nice way of putting it Jen I think I'll use that explanation from now on ;D
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Jun 20, 2003 18:26:56 GMT -5
The right one is when Preston takes Brandts gun that was on the white car (the sceene just before killing of all dogs). The switch of sceenes was a simple human error in cutting of raw material. ... or they wanted to see if we wached film properly. It can be very easy corrected anyway. I think you're right as to the switch of scenes being a human error in cutting raw material. But hey, what do I know? Maybe the other option is right. Or what Jen says...maybe Wimmer was f***ing with us. All in all, I did not notice the sequencing error until I'd watched EQ a few times. I was so emotionally involved and gleeful in seeing Brandt being taken away, I was roaring with cheers. ;D
|
|
|
Post by BobMundon on Jun 20, 2003 23:04:03 GMT -5
well i read the draft screenplay that was posted on freewebs site, and the switch happened at the car when brandt was doing his paperwork
then i checked for the execution scene that brandt flashes back to in the movie, and that wasnt even in there, so at least originally it was planned to do it at the car
i guess wimmer was just screwing with us, or it was just a screwup by the editing crew or something
|
|
|
Post by badge468 on Jul 9, 2003 14:05:22 GMT -5
Preston would have to switch 2 guns. He pulled 2 pistols during the fight over the dog.
|
|
|
Post by ClericRyan on Jul 24, 2003 14:35:04 GMT -5
Is there a flash back to the Glass Wall Exacution scene when Preston is in Dupont's office after Bradt arrests him?
|
|
|
Post by Cruis.In on Jul 24, 2003 19:12:09 GMT -5
since it would appear that throughout the movie Brandt is basically a tadle tale on Preston...running and telling Dupont everything he notices....i noticed Brandt's first glare when they search Mary's apartment after he drags her over to the mirror.
so with that in mind, Dupont and Brandt both know the weapon has been switched. So why would Brandt need to think back to the execution scene and act all surprised....as if he is now realising that the switch occured... no...he knows, so this edit where they flash back to that part is just to fool us.
"brandts job was to make you feel like you had won"
and the flashback scene was to make us feel like Preston had won, and show why we should feel that way, that Preston had done some elaborate trick on them....then the final twist, with the Not without incident scene.
I for one truly throught when they hauled off Brandt that Preston really had got him.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Jul 24, 2003 20:08:36 GMT -5
I for one truly throught when they hauled off Brandt that Preston really had got him. Me, too! I was so emotionally involved, I didn't notice the sequence error and was yelling and jumping up and down in glee that Brandt was being taken away for Summary Combustion.
|
|
|
Post by Cruis.In on Jul 25, 2003 7:47:26 GMT -5
i dont really harp on predictable elements of movies, but when they happen, i speak of them. and this ending to me was not predictable, that they had been tricking him. first i thought in the scene when he is hauled off to Dupont is that he is gonna get it now, but when he pulls this sweet come back, and winks at Brandt, his mind blowing intelligence and intellect struck me. YEAH take that Brandt... only when they got to the place and the man said you have to take a test, did i say uh oh....they'll know, and then when i saw the man looking at him did i suspect...but it wasn't predictable at all. it was well done twist. Preston is so smart. example, when Brandt asked him when he is rearranging his desk..."you didn't like the way it was before?" Preston "I had no feelings about it, i was merely attemping to optimize." clean break.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Jul 25, 2003 8:55:51 GMT -5
Preston "I had no feelings about it, i was merely attemping to optimize." clean break. That's one of my favorite subtle humor from the film. Gets me smiling every time...even when I read it here on the board...
|
|
|
Post by ClericRyan on Jul 25, 2003 9:22:36 GMT -5
I think if the flashback had shown the gun hand off before the dog scene, everything would have worked a little better. That way it would have appeared that Preston had used Brandts gun in the famous "Your making a big mistake" scene
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on Aug 26, 2003 8:57:03 GMT -5
Getting back to the subject of why they had to kill Father... In my mind it seems obvious (he said, waiting for people to point out the flaws in his argument : that the core of the rebellion is confusion. The leader says something along the lines of "it will leave the council leaderless". With no orders coming from above, and with the Prozium factories destroyed, not only will the populace not be able to dose, but also no hoarded Prozium supplies can be taken from storage. Surely there would be backup supplies in case of emergency, but with Father or Dupont unable to issue orders then they'd likely just sit on their shelves unused. I don't think that the resistance had Preston in mind specifically for the mission, especially since Partridge was much closer to the rebellion (going to meet them every night, and he was Mary's lover). I felt that the fact that Preston became a sense offender and turned to them was by chance rather than design. After all, how could the resistance *make* him miss his Prozium dose? Deimos
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Aug 26, 2003 15:52:55 GMT -5
Having to kill Father was the natural progression of general revolts. It's the obvious conclusion to a generally unpredictable movie! And for some reason we can never get off the whole gun switch issue!
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Aug 26, 2003 19:52:50 GMT -5
I felt that the fact that Preston became a sense offender and turned to them was by chance rather than design. After all, how could the resistance *make* him miss his Prozium dose? Interesting. You make a good point. I believe the general consensus is that it was all planned out. This can be shown when Preston goes to replace his interval and the Equilibrium facility is closed due to terrorist activity. Then Brandt shows up shortly thereafter...perhaps a ploy to make sure he continued to miss his dose. However, they couldn't have planned for Preston to drop his dose on the floor in the first place. Leaves one to wonder whether it was just chance. But there are also references in the movie to it being planned. Hmmm. Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Aug 27, 2003 7:48:35 GMT -5
However, they couldn't have planned for Preston to drop his dose on the floor in the first place. Leaves one to wonder whether it was just chance... I don't think it was chance because I believe that Preston's execution of Partridge was a deliberate setup to take him on that path. Partridges death is the catalyst - consciously or subconsciously. Immediately after Dupont questions Preston about missing his wife's sense offence he states, "...be more vigilant in the future." This triggers Preston's memory about the conversation in the car with Partridge. This time he HAS to be more vigilant...because he does know just as Partridge states. In the subsequent scene we see Preston viewing the tape and the ball that Dupont played is now in motion. Once Preston kills Partridge its only a mater of time before Preston ceases dosing and Dupont knew this - perhaps the dropping of the vial itself was accidental but I believe that one way or another the path was set. It was but a question of how & when?? Another interesting note is that just as Preston is at his most venerable & without the defences of Prozium is when he is introduced to Mary in an emotionally charged circumstances. Accidental?? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Aug 27, 2003 19:56:04 GMT -5
I don't think it was chance because I believe that Preston's execution of Partridge was a deliberate setup to take him on that path. Partridges death is the catalyst - consciously or subconsciously. In the subsequent scene we see Preston viewing the tape and the ball that Dupont played is now in motion. Once Preston kills Partridge its only a mater of time before Preston ceases dosing and Dupont knew this - perhaps the dropping of the vial itself was accidental but I believe that one way or another the path was set. It was but a question of how & when?? Another interesting note is that just as Preston is at his most venerable & without the defences of Prozium is when he is introduced to Mary in an emotionally charged circumstances. Accidental?? I think not. Thanks. This is so helpful to me. So interesting about Mary. That wasn't accidental, was it? It seems to me also that Brandt watches Preston extra closely during these first scenes with Mary. He's expecting Preston to have an emotional reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Bliss on Sept 10, 2003 9:49:01 GMT -5
Sorry to drag this one out of the gutter but something that I am not sure was explained is that Preston was understood by his superiors to have a large "capacity" for emotion. The resistance knew much about Preston and it is very likely they knew this as well by watching him that he would one day give in to his emotions even if he was on Prozium. Everything was planned around him eventually giving in and learning to feel. They would know when he begun to feel by watching him. He was being "used" by both sides as an end to a mean. If you bomb the buldings but don't cut off the head (kill father), then they were worried he would be able to go another route to accomodate those affected by the bombings.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Shmoe on Sept 26, 2003 23:02:19 GMT -5
Don't think of the guns as having tracers, think of either the bullets or magazines having them. Think about it: Controlled ammunition distribution.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Shmoe on Sept 26, 2003 23:10:00 GMT -5
Also, as far as the plot goes, I do believe it was all a plot. There were too many instances where he was being watched. His blatant emotional responses in the interrogation room (each time) ON CAMERA... also, you can see the pattern that keeps him off his dose. He was introduced into a situation (the beginning with his partner) where he could be set on the path to emotion. Once curiosity kicked in, they could believe he was easily predictable (and for the most part, he was). Also, they did reveal that they had been watching him the whole time near the end of the movie. I mean jeez, you know DuPont was off the juice. He had a painting in his office. Not only that, but the black dude that became his partner was obviously not taking the EC-10.
|
|
|
Post by BMaloney on Sept 26, 2003 23:36:44 GMT -5
Umm perhaps you might have your facts mixed up. No one is 'on' EC-10.. the drug is called Prozium and the 'black dude's name is Brandt.
|
|
|
Post by proziumabuser on Oct 4, 2003 0:59:00 GMT -5
I don't think it was chance because I believe that Preston's execution of Partridge was a deliberate setup to take him on that path. Partridges death is the catalyst - consciously or subconsciously. Immediately after Dupont questions Preston about missing his wife's sense offence he states, "...be more vigilant in the future." This triggers Preston's memory about the conversation in the car with Partridge. This time he HAS to be more vigilant...because he does know just as Partridge states. In the subsequent scene we see Preston viewing the tape and the ball that Dupont played is now in motion. Once Preston kills Partridge its only a mater of time before Preston ceases dosing and Dupont knew this - perhaps the dropping of the vial itself was accidental but I believe that one way or another the path was set. It was but a question of how & when?? Another interesting note is that just as Preston is at his most venerable & without the defences of Prozium is when he is introduced to Mary in an emotionally charged circumstances. Accidental?? I think not. boy i have to hand it to you guys, u really come up with great theories that really racked my brains... taking everything into account, along with the commentaries on the dvd, i do believe that Mary was a plant, perhaps even on the council; Wimmer tells the audience on the dvd commentary to wonder how well Dupont knows Mary... Mary was supposed to appear alive at the end, says Wimmer if I'm not mistaken, and that would suggest that her execution was a set up as well. I was wondering however about Dupont's quote of "be careful preston, you are treading on my dreams", and if Partridge was in on it as well since their quotes link together, but i believe that Partridge could not be in on it since that would mean that a cleric has already infiltrated the resistance (the guy at the library says that Partridge met with Jurgen in the past). Partridge would then be able to turn the resistance over for real, while making the resistance believe he was on their side. But i guess he's a good guy, for partridge did not undertake such an action. Of course, partridge could have been in on it, but Preston kills him before he does anything. If he was in on it, why was he reading yeats? maybe he is allowed to since he is on the council as well, but that is a remote possibility that im throwing out there.
|
|
|
Post by CQB The Guest on Oct 4, 2003 20:15:52 GMT -5
i understand ur theories, but if Partridge WAS working for the Council than wouldn't he have been protected from Preston and the Sweepers? And if he was already FeeLing than y would he turn his back on the resistance and help out the "non-feelers" especially since he knew that the "non-feelers" were already feeling (Dupont and Council), so basically all im sayin is, Y would Partridge help the bad guys if he already began to feel? it'll be like sayin he has broken the rules, but yet he brakes the rules just to enforce them, u get my message?, ...It doesnt make sense!
|
|
|
Post by CQB Guest on Oct 4, 2003 20:19:36 GMT -5
Also: sorry if i sounded rude, no "sense" offense, my apolog'ees
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Oct 4, 2003 20:54:08 GMT -5
i understand ur theories, but if Partridge WAS working for the Council than wouldn't he have been protected from Preston and the Sweepers? And if he was already FeeLing than y would he turn his back on the resistance and help out the "non-feelers" especially since he knew that the "non-feelers" were already feeling (Dupont and Council), so basically all im sayin is, Y would Partridge help the bad guys if he already began to feel? it'll be like sayin he has broken the rules, but yet he brakes the rules just to enforce them, u get my message?, ...It doesnt make sense! I think Partridge was just biding his time. And perhaps he didn't have enough nerve as Preston would to go through with it all.
|
|
|
Post by CQB The Guest on Oct 5, 2003 9:48:33 GMT -5
So in other words, he was just gonna be like Preston, except that he couldnt go through it all, with killing Dupont and everything..., That would suck then, imagine Partridge and Preston in "bruce Lee" white ceremonial uniforms fighting side by side against the hallway of Sweepers, in quadruple pistol fashion...., or maybe just because they couldn't afford to hire Sean Bean for such an extended period of time...ok im done
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on Oct 5, 2003 10:06:25 GMT -5
If that is the case, and Partridge had screwed up the courage to do the whole 'assassinate Father' thing, then surely Preston would have opposed him - and I tend to think that Preston would have lasted longer than Brandt did. To me, Partridge seemed like the kind of guy who didn't want to change the world - he was wrapped up in his own world of newly-blossoming emotion. He wanted to distance himself from his role as a Cleric as much as possible - it was obvious from the word go that he wasn't going to last long into the film IMHO. Deimos
|
|
|
Post by proziumabuser on Oct 5, 2003 19:29:01 GMT -5
i understand ur theories, but if Partridge WAS working for the Council than wouldn't he have been protected from Preston and the Sweepers? And if he was already FeeLing than y would he turn his back on the resistance and help out the "non-feelers" especially since he knew that the "non-feelers" were already feeling (Dupont and Council), so basically all im sayin is, Y would Partridge help the bad guys if he already began to feel? it'll be like sayin he has broken the rules, but yet he brakes the rules just to enforce them, u get my message?, ...It doesnt make sense! again, its all hypothetical, but u find out at the end that dupont feels, so perhaps the entire council feels also... if partridge was on or with the council, then he would have handed the resistance over already, so i concede that point. but i don't get the quote of "you're treading on my dreams" by dupont at the end.. it jsut seemed like dupont and partridge were connected. maybe the director was just trying to be cute. but, i still think that mary was planted to lead to preston's downfall, and since mary and partridge were lovers, that led me to believe that partridge was in on it. of course, maybe the picture was fake...
|
|
|
Post by proziumabuser on Oct 5, 2003 19:44:01 GMT -5
If that is the case, and Partridge had screwed up the courage to do the whole 'assassinate Father' thing, then surely Preston would have opposed him - and I tend to think that Preston would have lasted longer than Brandt did. To me, Partridge seemed like the kind of guy who didn't want to change the world - he was wrapped up in his own world of newly-blossoming emotion. He wanted to distance himself from his role as a Cleric as much as possible - it was obvious from the word go that he wasn't going to last long into the film IMHO. Deimos i dont think that partridge was that ignorant.. he did supposedly fall in love with a sense offender. perhaps partridge knew that if he tried to kill father, then he would eventually face preston and have no chance, as u said. u could see it in partridge's eyes right before the first gun kata sequence when he looks at preston from behind, and seems kind of sullen. that's why he didnt put up much of a fight against preston in the church. but maybe he sacrificed himself in order for preston to perhaps remember in the future and feel, a truly noble thing to do when facing one's own death. i'm being hypothetical again.
|
|