What Movies Have You Watched? 17: Blowed Up Real Good

[warpus]

It's a while since I saw this movie, but IIRC, in Star Trek terms, the Tesla-machine is actually a "replicator", but the magician is presenting it to the audience as a "transporter".

Spoiler :

But in order to do that, the 'original' has to be destroyed, hence the trapdoor in the bottom of the first chamber, which drops the original into the drowning-tank when the flash goes off. Essentially, the magician is committing suicide every time he performs the trick. I never understood why the 'new' copy never disposed of the bodies, though...

The magician himself admits to the audience that he doesn't know if he's going to end up in the tank or not, if he uses the machine. That's a bit of a contradiction in the whole thing that doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if the audience is subverted with how the machine actually works, but it is never really explained anywhere, and parts of the movie appear to contradict each other.

I suspect that they threw in the "I don't know what happens when I jump in the machine" quote to make the magician appear to not be a complete idiot. But.. yeah.. it seems to not jive with what we saw of the machine earlier

 

[El_Machinae]

He's a clone. His "I never knew, therefore I was brave" means that he 'remembered' being lucky each time. But if both entities have the exact same memories at the moment of copy, then they both think they're the original.

From the drowning man's perspective, he's the original and he suddenly realizes he was so very, very wrong. This is despite the fact that he remembers surviving the trick each time before.

Note that the teleported copy that got shot (in the first case) is the new Jackman. In all next cases, it's the teleported copy that survives.

Here is the (ancient) essential video on the topic.

Start at 0:45 to skip the opening music

 

[Kyriakos]

He's a clone. His "I never knew, therefore I was brave" means that he 'remembered' being lucky each time. But if both entities have the exact same memories at the moment of copy, then they both think they're the original.

From the drowning man's perspective, he's the original and he suddenly realizes he was so very, very wrong. This is despite the fact that he remembers surviving the trick each time before.

Note that the teleported copy that got shot (in the first case) is the new Jackman. In all next cases, it's the teleported copy that survives.

So in the movie Tesla alters the machine to now also be able to teleport the original too instead of just creating a copy and teleporting that? One would wonder why movie Tesla didn't just make use of his new tech so as to stop listening to crap like AC/DC.
Also one would wonder why the movie doesn't show you that Tesla did just that. The intention to keep this obscure and ambiguous, on the other hand, seems to be evident, which imo messes with the current of your reading.
So straightforward a conclusion also makes the narration over the final sequence of the movie rather superfluous, unless you think it is a cheap attempt to cast doubt.

 

[El_Machinae]

So in the movie Tesla alters the machine to now also be able to teleport the original too instead of just creating a copy and teleporting that?

You're continuing to think there's an original and a copy. The horror is that there are two originals.

 

[Kyriakos]

You're continuing to think there's an original and a copy. The horror is that there are two originals.

Are you just trolling? Not sure if you just mean that as a philosophical statement, which wasn't what we are discussing (anyway, as to the philo stuff: if you mean that both are the same entity, that's only true from other people's perspective; hint: you will die if you are in the water-tank, and your consciousness dies with you regardless of your clone living with a copy of that consciousness)
At any rate I do think there were two originals, but only because imo in the movie there wasn't any use of the Tesla machine and it's just the drunk look-alike in the water-tank.
But answer the question

 

[El_Machinae]

Wait, you're arguing about ambiguities in a movie you've never seen?
What's the point? The movie is pretty clear.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wait, you're arguing about ambiguities in a movie you've never seen?
What's the point? The movie is pretty clear.

I have seen the movie and don't agree with you that it is clear in that a functional teleportation Tesla's machine was used (or was even real).
Afaik in the book the movie is adapted from, it is entirely clear. But not in the movie.

But even if I am correct in my reading, it's just a reading of ambiguity so there isn't anything more to present...

 

[warpus]

He's a clone. His "I never knew, therefore I was brave" means that he 'remembered' being lucky each time. But if both entities have the exact same memories at the moment of copy, then they both think they're the original.

From the drowning man's perspective, he's the original and he suddenly realizes he was so very, very wrong. This is despite the fact that he remembers surviving the trick each time before.

That's a pretty neat angle that I did not consider before! The first clone must have thought that he was the original AND that the machine teleports the original instead of killing him.

That raises the question though.. The very first time that happened.. Why would the magician do that, given that all the evidence up to that point very strongly pointed to the machine creating duplicates elsewhere - and the original staying where it is? He was not a clone so he did not have those "this works the other way" memories. In this case it seems that the magician was a really stupid person who knew that he was going to die if he jumps in a pool of water that gets locked up after he jumps in.. but for some reason he did it anyway.

Why not design the trick so the person on stage jumps down onto a sack of safety? And the teleported clone ends up in the tank to drown? That way you get to present the exact same trick and the original doesn't die - so you get to live - which seems like a big bonus

 

[El_Machinae]

The first clone must have thought that he was the original AND that the machine teleports the original instead of killing him.

The first clone realized that he was going to get shot if he didn't speak very quickly. He was wrong.
But yes, considering the first transported clone gets murdered, the original 'self-experimentation' was that the clone gets teleported and the original stays. So, the fact that he switched the victim for the act is a little non-sensical.

Of course, after teleportee survives, he starts thinking it's random.

I can only recommend my youtube video above. It's internet gold.

 

[Kyriakos]

Start at 0:45 to skip the opening music

That was one dumb scientist. But the girl was even worse - and committed suicide so as to spawn someone thinking it's her. "But I have no more guilt" - yes, but not you.

That said, I don't recall what I thought of the possibility that the real magician just has unleashed one clone (tricking the clone somehow) and keeps killing the clone in the machine and then releasing a clone of the clone in the watertank - finally locking the watertank to trick his old adversary. I'd need to rewatch to recall why I didn't like that angle.

Btw, @El_Machinae , you may find this variation to be of interest:

 

[Zkribbler]

neil gaiman's Neverwhere,,,Chapter 1 Door.

 

[JohannaK]

You're continuing to think there's an original and a copy. The horror is that there are two originals.

This is what I have been trying to say all along. Thank you.

 

[JohannaK]

The first clone realized that he was going to get shot if he didn't speak very quickly. He was wrong.
But yes, considering the first transported clone gets murdered, the original 'self-experimentation' was that the clone gets teleported and the original stays. So, the fact that he switched the victim for the act is a little non-sensical.

Of course, after teleportee survives, he starts thinking it's random.

I can only recommend my youtube video above. It's internet gold.

Well no, you need the transportee to survive because transportation IS the trick. You can't have the original survive because a) you don't know where exactly the transportee will appear b) you cannot kill the transportee because he IS the trick and therefore c) you would have to kill the transportee after the fact, and by then he has had the time and opportunity to slip away.

 

[JohannaK]

That was one dumb scientist. But the girl was even worse - and committed suicide so as to spawn someone thinking it's her. "But I have no more guilt" - yes, but not you.

That said, I don't recall what I thought of the possibility that the real magician just has unleashed one clone (tricking the clone somehow) and keeps killing the clone in the machine and then releasing a clone of the clone in the watertank - finally locking the watertank to trick his old adversary. I'd need to rewatch to recall why I didn't like that angle.

Btw, @El_Machinae , you may find this variation to be of interest:

Every time he uses the machine there is a new Angiers. All of them drop in tanks and die. That's the 'final reveal' when Borden kills Angiers and the camera dollies out to reveal dozens of tanks with dead Angiers all The Lost Ark style. The entire point of using blind stagehands is that they do not realise what is going on.

 

[Takhisis]

Charles Boyer double feature!
Mayerling (1936), about the romance between Rudolph, crown prince of Austria, directed by Anatole Litvak.
Algiers (1938), remake of the 1937 French crime film Pépé le Moko. Boyer's character inspired the animated character Pepe le Pew.

 

[warpus]

I watched

News of the World - Pretty good western w/ Tom Hanks. I liked his dynamics w/ the little girl, which sounds like a creepy thing to say but it's Tom Hanks after all. This movie actually made me a bit emotional at times.
Paul - How come I've never heard of this movie and it has all these stars and cameos in it? It's about an alien and there's enough funny and silly parts to keep you going.
Into the Wild - Not my kind "into the wild" sort of movie, but overall pretty interesting.
Identity Thief - Ridiculous premise that makes zero sense. Was the world really like this just 8 years ago? Even I knew about the dangers of identity fraud back then. The people in this movie are idiots. The main baddie is an idiot who we are supposed to end up liking. Stupid
Forgetting Sarah Marshall - I always hear how great this movie is but it was so full of cliches I wanted to throw up. Completely unrealistic movie about romance with a solid cast and some funny parts. It tries too hard though.
The Big Sick - Okay so now this is an actually good romantic comedy. Stumbled on it by accident. Supposedly based on a true story, which makes it even better. The lead's actions are questionable at times but hey I can relate. I didn't want to watch another romantic comedy (I don't like them or anything, usually), but the actor's name caught my eye and I wanted to see something funny with him in it.

 

[Fippy]

Stir of Echoes (99, Kevin Bacon).
This was good, Bacon usually is too.
Not much violence and "safe", considering it's tags (horror, mystery thriller).

 

[Samson]

Total Recall (2012).

OK film, I am not sure it added anything to the Arnie one other than the worst british accents since Mary Poppins.

Spoiler Rants :

What is going on with the physics and geology of the fall. And at the end, the hero girl turned over the hero boy by pulling on the shoulder that had just been shot?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Red Notice - Ridiculous. *(but see EDITS below) Aesthetically very beautiful, with lots of beautiful cars, settings and colours. Watching with wife. I can't even begin to name all the movies that this is a mash up of, but it pretty much has zero even remotely original plot elements. The whole move you are thinking, "Oh this is just like what happened/they did/said in X movie." As I begin to write this, I'm currently "watching" what I am guessing is the final climactic chase scene. It's one of those overly drawn out, over-the-top-cliche, chase scenes, full of explosions, shooting, people jumping from car to car, being thrown from moving cars, and all sorts of improbable/impossible contrivances. I can barely even watch anymore, its purely sunken costs fallacy watching at this point. Its so full of predictable tropes, and cliches that it weren't for the modern special effects, I'd think I was watching an 80's movie. When I started typing, my wife asked "You aren't watching anymore?" I replied "There's no point", and motioned towards the screen. She laughed and said "Yeah this is basically the same scene in every movie like this, the same things happen every time so you've basically already seen this scene 100 times already."

Everything in the movie is so telegraphed and predictable... "Oh the soap is 'pure glycerin' Ryan? Oh gee I wonder why you mentioned that? I'm sure that won't come up later." "Oh you're stacking up rocks to fill a hole in the wall but not using any mortar... hmmm wonder if that will come up again?" "Oh the antique car is bulletproof you say? Like a convertible tank you say? Hmm, wonder if that's going to come in handy anytime soon?" And the whole movie is like that. For every one thing that happens which actually surprises you, at least ten things are eye-rolling cliches, predictable tropes, or head-shaking improbable hero-armor contrivances.

EDIT: The movie actually comes off more like a parody of a bunch of genres of movies... and now that I'm thinking about it... maybe it is... it kind of has to be... I didn't realize that when I chose the movie, I thought it was a serious action or heist film, so maybe my impression was skewed by that. I may have to re-evaluate once I finish the movie, or maybe watch it again.

EDIT: OK, finally finished the movie. It's definitely got to be intended as a soft-parody. That's the only way it makes sense... not like Scary Movie level parody, but still a parody. So in doing that they definitely succeeded. It's actually kind of cool that they spoofed/parodied so many different movies and types of movies, including movies that they themselves had been in. All in all, it is enjoyable enough to watch, when you take into account that the movie is supposed to more a comedy/action/heist/doublecross/adventure hybrid parody, rather than a serious heist, action or adventure movie. The acting is actually pretty good, given the genre, Reynolds is funny, like Will Smith-in-his-prime level wittiness and delivery, and Gal Gadot and Dwayne Johnson provide eye candy overload. Despite being adversaries, the chemistry between all three characters is fantastic. Particularly Gadot and Johnson, the chemistry between them its almost suspiciously good... like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie Mr. & Mrs. Smith good (which was the movie that broke up their respective relationships and spawned the infamous "Brangelina"). But you absolutely have to accept that the movie is intended as a comedy and the cliche/trope overload is fully intentional to add to the comedic factor. Like The Rock's recent summer blockbuster, adventure movie, Jungle Cruise it leans hard into the tried and true cliches so the movie is predictable, but it seems like that was intentional. Ultimately still enjoyable in many parts.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Stir of Echoes (99, Kevin Bacon).
This was good, Bacon usually is too.
Not much violence and "safe", considering it's tags (horror, mystery thriller).

Oh yes. Good movie!