Predestination : Plot Explained

http://www.thisisbarry.com/#!Predestination-2014-Plot-Explained/ce4s/55fafe380cf256c0bf92b53b
Our content has moved.
Redirecting .... Please wait...
A predestination paradox occurs when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" or "predates" him or her to travel back in time. The paradox suggests that those people who travel back in time would have no way of changing a situation.
This is what this movie Predestination is about.



Basic Plot:

Let us give the spoiler out straight away as that will help understand what the movie is about.
We see 4 main characters in this movie – Jane, John, the Barkeep and the Fizzle bomber. They are all the same person from a different timeline. Yep, the same person.

The movie starts off with a man in a coat and hat trying to defuse a bomb. He gets distracted by a gun shots and before the bomb can be safely diffused, it blows up burning the face of the man in the coat and hat. Another person walks up to burnt man and helps him reaching out to a violin case. The burnt man uses the violin box and disappears. There are three people in this scene. The man trying to diffuse the bomb, this is John. The man who fires at John, this is the Fizzle bomber and the man who helps John with the violin case, this is the Barkeep. The point to be noted here is that they are all the same person from 3 different timelines. Don’t give it too much thought right now. Read on further.

Burnt face man, John, goes back to a future time – 1992, and gets his face grafted. Since his face is completely destroyed, they give him a new face. This is the face that we will refer to as Barkeep. John/Barkeep has been trying to hunt down a chain bomber that they call the Fizzle bomber. John/Barkeep has been trying to stop a major New York event in 1975 which kills over 10,000 people, but has been unsuccessful so far. John/Barkeep is a temporal agent of a mysterious Temporal Bureau who have the ability to travel through time.

Barkeep has one final mission he has to embark on now. For which he travels back to 1970 and plays the role of a barkeep. His younger self, John from the 1970 timeline, arrives at the bar. They start talking. John reveals that he is the author – Unmarried Mother. John starts telling the story of his life where he was born a girl and was called Jane. Jane was a baby abandoned at an orphanage in 1945. Jane never ends up getting adopted and she eventually tries to join the Space Corps program headed by one Mr. Robertson. Jane gets rejected from the program because something in her physiology is “odd”. But they don’t tell her that when they disqualify her.

Jane gives up and attends night school where she bumps into a stranger. She falls in love with him, but the stranger disappears on Jane one day, leaving her waiting on a bench. We will get back to who this stranger is in a bit. Jane realizes that she is pregnant. She delivers a baby successfully but the doctor tells her that Jane has an “odd” physiology – she has fully formed male and female organs. Complications in delivery result in the doctors only being able to save the male organs. Jane will need to change to a man as a result. Soon after this, her baby gets stolen.  Jane becomes John over time.

John completes telling this story to the Barkeep. However, the Barkeep knows all of this. It is his own life’s story after all. He doesn’t reveal that yet. Barkeep tells John that he knows the location of the “stranger” who ruined Jane’s life. Barkeep promises that he will give John the opportunity of revenge, of killing that stranger free of any consequences. John and Barkeep use the violin box to travel back in time to the point where Jane was attending night school. John equips himself with a gun and goes looking for the stranger. John bumps into Jane. John soon realizes that he is that “stranger”. He falls in love with Jane and has sex with her.

Yes folks, the male self goes back in time when he was female and has sex with him/herself. Bizarre, we now know another one of those things that is apparently possible. Talk about self-sufficient! Hang on, there is more to come.

While all of this is happening, Barkeep quietly slips out and goes forward to 1970 - to the event of the bomb defusal, the first scene of the movie. Barkeep reaches to see the Fizzle bomber placing the bomb; they get into a gun fight, then into a fist fight. Barkeep gets his ass handed to him and faints. Barkeep wakes up just in time to see John’s face getting burnt trying to defuse the bomb. Barkeep helps John with the violin box. The Fizzle bomber escapes.

Barkeep heads to the time when Jane has given birth. Mr. Robertson joins him there. It is shown that he too has a little violin box of his own and can travel through time, he seems to head the Temporal Bureau. Barkeep steals Jane’s baby and travels back to 1945 with the baby. He abandons the baby at the orphanage.

Yep, not only does the male from a future timeline has sex with his past girl self. The baby born as a result is the origin of him/herself too. Messed up right? That is truly self-sufficient indeed! This also explains why the baby would grow with both sex organs. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s your predestination paradox right there. Jane/John is a self-created entity because the “himself” from a future time has sex with the “herself” from a past time.

Once Barkeep leaves the baby, he returns to the time John and Jane are still together. He signals for John, John leaves Jane waiting on the bench. Barkeep tells John that they need to leave this timeline and travel forward. At this point Barkeep tells John that he too is John from a future timeline with a different face – however in the movie, this portion is disclosed only in the end. Barkeep and John travel forward to 1985. Barkeep meets Mr. Robertson and leaves John to recover there and travels back to 1975 for retirement. By now Barkeep has made an audio recording for John to hear and follow. Barkeep heads off to 1975 (just before the New York event date).

John recovers and uses the tape left to him by Barkeep to prep to become a temporal agent. Seven years later, in 1992, John jumps back to 1970 wearing a coat and a hat to diffuse a bomb set by the Fizzle bomber. John gets into a gun fight with the Fizzle bomber and ends up getting distracted. The bomb goes off burning John’s face.
There you have it. That explains why in the first scene of the movie you have 3 people - John, Barkeep and Fizzle bomber who are the same person from 3 different timelines.

Barkeep reaches 1975 to retire after leaving John in 1985, he decommissions his time device, but it shows an error in decommissioning. He checks the file to notice that Mr. Robertson has left him clues to get to the Fizzle bomber who is just about to commit the New York event of 1975. He heads to the Laundromat where the Fizzle bomber is. When Barkeep reaches the Laundromat, he encounters the fizzle bomber. The Fizzle bomber is the Barkeep from a future timeline. Barkeep has been basically chasing his own self from a future timeline. The time leaps have caused Barkeep to grow maniacal and turn into the Fizzle bomber. In the focus of stopping terror attacks, he’s been killing innocents. Barkeep kills the Fizzle bomber. However, Barkeep does not report the time device which he’s unable to decommission. That is the end of the movie.

Here is a timeline diagram describing the life of
Jane -> John -> Barkeep:

Does The Barkeep Become The Fizzle Bomber?
Barkeep does not report the time device which he’s unable to decommission. This indicates that he continues to use the device; time jumps are indicated to have an effect on the mind. Let’s not forget about the fact that every other event in this story is predestined to happen. This should be no exception to the rule. It only makes sense that Barkeep grows old to become the insane Fizzle bomber.

Has The New York Incident Been Stopped?
Well looks like it has but then again, predestination right? This even has already happened. Barkeep’s killing the Fizzle Bomber doesn’t necessarily mean that the bombing has been stopped. An older Fizzle bomber may have been killed by Barkeep. A younger Fizzle Bomber who is not as lost could be responsible for the New York event. After all the Fizzle Bomber also has the ability to travel through time as he pleases. We would like to stick to the theory that the New York event happens.

A Remix like never before. Check out Wonderwall by Oasis:



Check out the explanation of Moon!


By popular demand, we've done an explanation for the movie Primer.
The movie with the least budget and most unique thought to the process of time travel. Happy reading!


Here is another movie that will blow your mind, we've explained Triangle (2009) for you:

268 comments:

  1. What about the very first time Jane is born?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the catch, like Mr.Robertson says, John has no history, he is is an entity of his own creation. We know, insane right?

      Delete
    2. So the baby that the barkeep steals and takes back to the orphanage is the offspring of Jane (original adult Jane) and future self (John from the 70's), correct? Is barkeep doing this to ensure his existence?

      Delete
    3. I believe it is done because throughout his career, he stops many bad things from happening, and had he not been created / taken the path he does, then all those crimes he stopped would have occurred. He was presumably the best at what he did.

      Delete
    4. The interesting bit is, he's stopping his own crimes from taking place!

      Delete
    5. Just the part that Jane is born from herself feels a little forced into to create the paradox. It would make more sense to create a clone (both parents have the same genes), but this would create a loop and make more than one jane in the orphanage. Although, here I am trying to make perfect sense from a movie with time travels. At least, we can make a mathematical proof that the incident from 1975 did not happen by paradox. :)

      Delete
    6. I understand what you are talking about. Here's a simpler version of this paradox:
      Imagine two people Joe and Sarah. Joe from 2012 travels back to 2008 to meet Sarah and hands her a piece of paper and says "please go find Joe from the current time". Sarah from 2008 then locates Joe of her time period and gives him the paper. 4 years later Joe travels back in time with the paper to meet Sarah.

      Where did the paper come from? It hurts the brain to think about that because we expect that matter can just be created like that. The movie makers have taken the paper logic and applied it to the very existence of a human being.

      Delete
    7. Its just not possible, which is why its called a paradox I suppose. The only thing that is possible is that an alternative, parallel timeline (or reality) is created. I think of it this way: if I went back in time to 2010 and killed my 2010-self, would I immediately cease to exist? Would friends' and family's memories of myself just suddenly disappear? How could those memories just disappear? That violates every rule of physics or whatever you choose to call it.

      The plot of the movie can never be explained in a way that is logical and makes complete sense. And I think thats why the writers never tell us who the "original" or "naturally-created" human being is in the story. Because if they did, they could never ever explain the story in a way that makes sense. It's simply incompatible with reality. Which leads to my conclusion that either A) traveling back in time and altering the past creates a new, alternate timeline that the time traveler would never be able to prove exists upon return to the "present day", or B) time travel just isn't possible and thats why we arrive at this paradox.

      Delete
    8. Try this alternate gloomy scenario of the creation of the movie predestination paradox:

      Beware its gloomier than you think ...

      http://www.digestivepyrotechnics.com/2014/12/predestination-plot-explained.html?showComment=1423079962055#c535996975696809046

      Delete
    9. If you went back in time to kill yourself, you wouldn't exist to do it in the first place, in other Words; you wouldn't stop existing yet possibly creating a parallel universe where you didn't.

      Delete
    10. jane gave birth to herself.

      Delete
    11. Hi Elisa, thanks for the note, yeah that would be the Grandfather Paradox as they call it.

      Delete
  2. Wow this is so twisted It's so amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This movie is very confusing, I'm still confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i just watched this movie yesterday and I'm with you on this one, I am very confused.

      Delete
    2. I never got it either, how does one give birth to their own self? WTF!

      Delete
  4. hey,thanks for the explaination.Really heled.But now I have more questions.

    When John was taken to meet jane,he sis realize what was happening.That he was in the past and doing the exact things that lead to the entire unhappy jane and the baby eisode.
    Why did not just run away somewhere and not knock up jane?The baby thing wouldn't have happened then!

    Or is this the entire point of 'predestination'??That no matter what ripple you create in the stream of time,the current will neutralize it?
    Please exlain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. excuse the typos.it's 'helped' on the first line.'Did' on the second one.cheers..:)

      Delete
    2. John wants to save Jane from all the difficulties she goes through. But in spite of what he wants, when John meets Jane he can't but help get drawn to her. He remembers a mirror of his pretty, troubled girl self. John can't help falling in love with Jane (strange, yes). He doesn't mean to hurt Jane, but ends up doing so because he falls in love and can't help himself.

      Like you said, anything he tries after that will be a mere ripple and get corrected by the stream.
      Did you happen to like Deja Vu too? That's where they use this ripple in the ocean analogy yeah?

      Another example of the predestination paradox is this - someone traveling back in time to save a loved one from a car accident, only to find themselves driving the car that killed loved one. The intention causes the incident to happen. John's intention to save Jane is what causes Jane to go through all that shit.

      Delete
    3. I came across the ripple theory in X-men the last stand, when beast tries to explain this to Charles.
      I understand the reason you gave me but I think one would not do anything Rash to oneself(jane) when one(john) already knows the consequences.How difficult was not sleeping with jane when he knew that it would lead to eternal misery!
      A similar paradox happens in Interstellar. When Cooper reaches the 5D space, he realizes that the things that were happening in his daughter's bedroom in the past were the things he was doing then.
      Why did he not change the message to anything other than what he already knew had been sent? That way he could've created a different timeline altogether. An alternate universe maybe.
      But instead he sent the same message again which he knew no one would pay heed to.

      Delete
    4. That is true, avoiding Jane could have saved her a lot of trouble. Perhaps John felt he will not abandon her this time (just like Barkeep says he would never become the Fizzle bomber). Think the idea is that the intention to act differently is what results in the events that transpire. It perhaps can also be seen as the universe trying to prevent a grandfather paradox from occurring.

      A new universe theory will help solve the grandfather paradox situation. Need to watch the last stand again :). In x-men: the days of future past, they never really explain how they handle the paradox created because of their meddling around with the past.

      Delete
  5. 1. What drove John (future) to steal the baby (John/Jane)?
    2. What is John(future) saving Jane (himself) from, if he is only in search of the bomber, that he has yet to figure out is himself(bomber)? He is the reason of his difficulties. Why did he not just go back to make sure he did not get burnt?
    3. Why did John(post-op) not realize that when he timed traveled to meet Jane(pre-op) to kill the guy who hurt her, he was actually coming to kill himself(post-op)? If he looks in the mirror everyday, he would recall having sex with himself, when he was Jane in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) His own survival, if he doesn't steal the baby, he will not exist, there by undoing all the work done to stop various bombing events. At this point he doesn't know that he becomes the Fizzle Bomber.

      2) Along side searching for the bomber, as he goes along, he realizes that his existence has no history, He, in the contortion of time, is the only one responsible for his existence. He has to ensure those events happen as planned else this own existence is in peril. Technically speaking, he (Barkeeper), goes to stop the bomber and save himself from getting burnt. However, he (Barkeep) only causes the distraction which slows John from diffusing the bomb and hence burning his face. That is the idea of the Predestination paradox - no matter what you try to do to change the past, you have already done it and that is what has resulted in the timeline you are in.

      3) The human mind tends to forget the face of a stranger who you met over a decade ago for a few weeks. John's face becomes what it is from Jane's face over many years through slow transformation. Images of old faces blur out. Besides, John hasn't traveled through time yet. So he could never really imagine that it was he himself who met Jane as the stranger.

      Hope that helps.

      Delete
    2. Neat thoughts there. Also if you notice, the Barkeep already knows that John is the one who enters Jane's life. Barkeep tricks John into coming with him to the past. He sets up the meeting of John and Jane. Again, he needs to do this because this is the event that is vital to his own existence.

      After this, Barkeep makes one "illegal" jump to intercept the event that causes John to burn his face. However, Barkeep causes the confusion that ends up John burning his face.

      Barkeep doesn't realize till the end that he is the one that becomes the Fizzle bomber. Had he known before, he may have stopped himself from existing, he might have at least tried. He sees his importance (as Mr Robertson tells him) only as the guy who's saved lives by stopping the bombing and therefore ensures his survival.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your answers!
      Also,
      1) Why is it that the (Jane/John) baby's existence will be in ruin, if the baby stayed with his mother (Jane/John) and not have been kidnapped?

      2) How does John's past life (baby/Jane-pre-op/john-post-op) intersect with His current life as an investigator, if he doesn't even know that he is the bomber yet?

      3) What of Mr. Robertson's clues help John(post-op/barkeep) finally make a connection to find the bomber, and when John(post-op/barkeep) finally finds himself (bomber), why is John's(bomber) character old?

      3) If Mr. Robertson left clues for john(post-op/barkeep) that led to john(bomber), why did he allow John (post-op/barkeep) to continue to jump? Couldn't Robertson have gone back in time himself( once), discussed with younger john(post-op/barkeep), and figured it out himself?

      4) How is it that John(post-op) could recollect the exact moment(time/date/place) he met the baby's father(john/post-op) when he was Jane(pre-op), but never noticed any resemblance between himself(post-op/john) and the father(john/post-op) of the baby(jane/john/barkeep/bomber)? As a virgin, having sex with the only person I love, I would remember quite clearly who the father of my child was.

      Delete
    4. 1) If the baby stayed with Jane, then a baby was never left at the orphanage, which means there is no more Jane, then who gives birth to the baby? Paradox.

      2) Barkeeper is a temporal agent, but he is an agent trying to stop the bombing. Had he known that all the bombings are being carried out merely by his self, he would choose an alternate option of stopping the bombing by killing himself (like in Looper). Not sure if your question was answered here.

      3) Mr. Robertson has the location of the bomber, last sighted before the bombing. Which is the Laundromat. Since Barkeep decides to retire in 1975, Mr. Robertson gives him the location of the Laundromat and time when the Fizzle bomber was seen there. The Fizzle bomber is an older, aged version of Barkeep - this is indicative that post retirement, Barkeep continues to use the un-decommissioned time device. It is mentioned in the movie that time leaps make you delusional, which is why there is a maximum limit and then the agent retires. The continued usage of the time device perhaps causes Barkeep to become maniacal and turn into the Fizzle bomber after many years (that's why the Fizzle bomber is older). Point to note here is that the Fizzle bomber thinks he's doing good by blowing up things - it's his twisted perception of things, showing that he is delusional.

      3) It appears as though Mr. Robertson is orchestrating everything. He appears to already know that the Barkeep will turn in to the Fizzle bomber, perhaps that is important too in the cycle of events. In a conversation Barkeep has with Mr. Robertson, Barkeep calls the Fizzle bomber a terrorist, Mr. Robertson begs to differ. He probably knows about the device failing to decommission. But that's just a theory. Why is he doing this - he needs to ensure the events of the time loop always occur to avoid a paradox.

      4) Like Janet mentioned, perhaps you'd remember the face. But slowly if your face changes to the face of the stranger who you had sex with, it may be unlikely that you wake up one day to look into the mirror and scream with realization. Because the face change happens slowly, even if a small part of you seems to make the connection, the other part of your brain would dismiss the notion by saying it's silly. It's a very valid point that you have raised however.

      Delete
    5. by leaving instructional tapes placed at specific points on the timeline...

      Delete
  6. Why isn't there more then one John showing up to meet Jane that night where they first meet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The night Jane meets John, there are 3 instances of the same person there. One Jane, one John from the future and one Barkeep from an even distant future. There are no more than one John at that point because the entity John travels exactly once to that time period in his lifetime. The next time in his life he travels to that point in time is as the Barkeep along with John. Had John (before he becomes the Barkeep) traveled back one more time to the point where Jane meets John, then there would be a second John there watching the first John meet Jane, but that never happens. Post meeting Jane, John leaves her and goes into the future to become a temporal agent and eventually becomes the Barkeep.

      Delete
    2. HOW OLD IS FIZZLE BOMBER BEFORE HE DIED

      Delete
    3. Hmm.. he look to be about 20 years older than Barkeep. Rough estimate, late 50s, early 60s may be?

      Delete
  7. I think there are 11 versions of John. When John asks Barkeep how many temporal agents are there? He responds with 'there are 11 of us' and goes on to say that we were all 'born into it'. Each time he takes the baby back in time a new Jane/John is created.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In the timeline is missing the fizzle bomber life line!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep Ivan, we left that out on purpose because there is not much indication in the movie as to when the Barkeep actually becomes the Fizzle bomber (in spite of him saying he would never become like the Fizzle bomber). Hope the other elements in the timeline are accurate.

      Delete
  9. hi, but when was john born? jane and john made the baby, but they already excist. so there had to be a beginning.
    or is this the story with "the egg and chicken", which one was first?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, you are spot on with the analogy. John and Jane result in a baby which grows up as Jane in the orphanage and becomes John later on. Classic chicken and egg in a time loop!

      Delete
  10. Time travelling is always so absurd, the more you think about more difficult is to understand...
    But it's a fine movie this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally in agreement with you, time travel movies have been as weird as they get, but this one.. oh it takes the mantle of weirdness !

      Delete
  11. Why would the old Fizzle Bomber go to the final scene (Laundromat), if he should know that he already killed himself (while he was younger).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Fizzle bomber says that he has preempted his meeting with Barkeep. Over time the Fizzle bomber has become delusional and erratic (which is what makes it difficult to locate a pattern and stop him). In his erratic behavior, he is distracted and doesn't preempt enough. Besides, the Fizzle bomber honestly feels that he can get Barkeep to change his mind and not kill him, that doesn't go too well though.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. this post and all the questions as well as the replies here are absolutely helpful and I am really appreciate this !!!!

    I have a question: after all, what is the role of Mr Robertson?
    - Like you said in one of the replies that Robertson probably knows john is fizzle bomber but why he doesnt do anything? what is the point, what is his final goal in this story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that rb!
      Mr. Robertson is the eerie man who is not really explained in the movie. Mr.Robertson could be a person in charge of simply making sure this sequence of events that is - Jane to John to Barkeep to Fizzle Bomber happens.
      To think about it, if any of the events don't happen, then a nastier paradox will occur.
      It's just a theory, wish they had thrown some more light on Mr.Robertson's role in all this.

      Delete
    2. Actually there is one possible answer.At the movie time "1:18:33" Mr.Robertson said that "this organization wouldn't have grown if it wasn't for the fizzle bomber" meaning that this time travel machine and time travel police agency wouldn't have grown or even created if it wasn't for the fizzle bomber.Kinda make sense though i mean it would take a terrorist to create a counter terrorist team.

      Delete
    3. haha, true anonymous

      Delete
  14. so it is pre destination paradox saying that what ever has happened must happen.

    so according to that they can not change any thing in the past.
    but
    1.robertson says to bartender (when jhon was on the bed in 1985) that because of you we could stop many killings.how did they changed history by stopping those killings...?

    2.fizzel Bomber says to that bartender that (who came to retire in 1975) that he would eventually become him. so if bartender grows old to look like fizel bomber then it would take at least take 15 or more years for bartender to become like that old fizel bomber so it shows that barekeper would become like fizzel bomber in
    1990 (1975+15). but how come fizzel bomber is in 1975 looking like that
    "" so can u explain the transition from bartender to fizzel bomber..?""

    3. and how did the fizzel bomber get that news paper posts ( those he shows to baretende who came to retire) from 1991 (where he saved some 3000 people). etc.

    if you can answer the above questions then i think all ambiguities will be cleared..?

    anyone..?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just answering on my opinion.

      1) in d new york 1975 event some bad guys who were supposed to do the crime in the future died

      2&3) because the time device failed to decommission, means the fizzle bomber can just time travel as the barkeep does. which eventually means he travel way more after he killed himself who the fizzle bomber.

      and i guess one of the motive hes continuing doing all this things after killing himself because hes in love with himself too much? like when the older fizzle bomber said when he met barkeep, he said he misses him?? and in the ending barkeep said i miss u dreadfully. n the moment when john n jane having conversation at d table d first time he did say that they think they r superior than any others. doing all those bombing to see himself later on i suppose..

      Delete
  15. First of all—your write-up is wonderful. :)

    Now, just one question: We know that (according to the film) time travel is invented in 1981. So, even with the paradox in place, there's sort of a way to "initiate" the paradox. This would mean that whoever invents or is privy to the invention of time travel is well aware of the predestination paradox. Robertson surely knows this...so why exactly does he run his agency? What exactly does he try to accomplish?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that note Mike.

      Mr. Robertson's role in all of this is kept a little fuzzy through out. It looks like he knows what is going to happen at each step and is simply guiding the events and ensuring that the key events happen as they are supposed to. If any of the events miss, then that could cause other terrible repercussions.

      He might just be the person in-charge of keeping the events of this vital loop in check.
      They could have thrown more light on his role in all of this, it is now up to our interpretation. :)

      Delete
    2. I don't think there must be a predestination paradox every time.
      Like you said if they can't change the past why creating time agency in the first place.

      For example in Déjà vu movie,your attempt to change past might contribute to the paradox but not necessarily unchangeable.

      And they did changed quite a lot of past accident after all,it was shown in the beginning of the movie with news paper clipping on the wall about the accident.

      So i think Mr.Robertson is just trying to prevent barkeeper from changing his own past or the future which might effect the agency it self.Beside he did say that the agency's growth depend on the fizzle bomber.

      Delete
    3. The paper clippings could be "created" to keep the temporal agent on track. What they really want from him is to make sure he exists.

      Delete
  16. I'd love to see you tackle explaining the move "Primer" next... :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha! Well done on the suggestion, we loved that movie too. Challenge Accepted.
      Will work on that one soon and update here.

      Delete
  17. Thank you for the excellent explanation!

    One question, though: Why did the Barkeep only go to the bomb defusal scene after dropping off John to meet Jane? He could have gone there any time, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it was illegal jump made by him to stop d bomber but failed. hes only allowed to do jump given in d mission d n d jump he made that time caused the john who was trying to diffuse the bomb got distracted n d bomb goes off n burned him which later on turn john to d barkeep guy. d earlier part of movie show that john diffusin it n saw someone behind him if not mistaken.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Anonymous-1 for the comment. And thank you Anonymous 2 for the quick explanation.

      Delete
  18. If Jane had sex with john how did she not recognoise herself as him when she got the sex change,those scars have to be unusual enough to trigger some suspicions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done there, indeed if you have sex with a person with those scars, it would be very difficult to forget them. And one you yourself get the same scars, your mind would surely ask - "Hey, I've seen this on that guy who ditched me".

      However, until John meets the Barkeep and learns of time travel, he may not have been able to piece together the fact that it was he "himself" who ditched his past "herself".

      Very valid point though.

      Delete
  19. the barkeep told john to have as little interaction with people as possible when time travelling so as not to effect the future yet surely by saving thousands of lives you dont know what effect this will have in the future

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The barkeep at that point doesn't know that he is merely stopping himself from setting off bombs. Though it looks like he's changing the future, he's not really. He's merely keeping his future self from succeeding.

      Delete
    2. my point is that nothing disastrous happened to the world by the bombing happening by going back and preventing it who knows what the consequences could be, let sleeping dogs lie.

      Delete
    3. Going by the predestination plot that - events that have occurred are never altered, it is possible that Barkeep is simply told that he is changing the past, but he really isn't. The news cuttings could all be a lie spread out by the bureau to keep Barkeep on his path and not alter any of the events.

      Delete
  20. normally predestination paradox is you can change past.

    so in this movie they were changing the past or not..?

    if yes..
    then jhon could have changed the past and should have stayed with jane,
    but he leaves her becauese the bar tender explains him u can't stay..becoz it has been same alwayz.

    if no
    then how could they stop many crimes by changing the paste..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A predestination paradox is an event that has already happened at a point in time due to a time travel that happened to that point in time. There is no changing the past. The events in the past remain the same as left by the time traveler.

      John can't stay with Jane because Barkeep explains to John how John needs to go into the future to become the temporal agent.

      Mr.Robertson is telling the Barkeep that they are changing the world. But it is possible that those crimes had always already been stopped, Barkeep had to just ensure that always happened.

      Delete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here's a thought:

    Why did Robertson give Bartender the information he needed to track down the Bomber? And why so much information? If they knew exactly where he was at a specific time to buy the timer, surely they could have just sent an agent back to kill the Bomber...

    ... IF that was what they were trying to do...

    Remember, nothing in this movie is changed through the time loops. No actual evidence of change is ever manifested, except one thing: Baby/Jane/John/Bartender/Bomber would not be able to exist without time travel. And yet Robertson claims that they have stopped crimes... EXACTLY what the Bomber claims he has been doing.

    What if the story presented is only how the loop gets set up, but the Bomber himself is the one who stopped the crimes they have claimed to stop. What if Robertson knows this, but doesn't tell Bartender because he knows he's not ready for that fact, yet?

    Robertson even says "He's made us better agents"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You, Sir Jeoshua, have hit that nail spot on its head.

      Mr. Robertson knows everything, it appears. In that case, he is simply ensuring all the events of the loop continue to happen. One way to do this is by telling the temporal agent that he is changing the past. But there is no changing the past, that is made clear in the movie.
      Mr. Robertson perhaps simply tells the temporal agent this to ensure that all the events happen as they have already happened.

      Great thought there!

      Delete
  23. I think it's more philosophical. Here's a interpretation from that angle:- https://gravito.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/the-philosophy-predestination-is-trying-to-prove-timeline-and-predestination-paradox-lessons-spoiler-alert/

    ReplyDelete
  24. There is no sense in that movie. It is interesting but it is complete nonsense & stupid script.
    This could never happen. There is no room for a beginning here. Even if Robertson started all of this, no sense! Even if Bomber lived & became Robertson. They must have started somehow in first place before this loop starts. Makes no sense. That's why it is stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha, the predestination paradox is defined without a beginning or end.
      They are a series of events that have happened through time and continue to happen.

      In the example mentioned above "Imagine two people Joe and Sarah. Joe from 2012 travels back to 2008 to meet Sarah and hands her a piece of paper and says "please go find Joe from the current time". Sarah from 2008 then locates Joe of her time period and gives him the paper. 4 years later Joe travels back in time with the paper to meet Sarah."

      Where do you think this loop starts? A loop is defined as continuous, therefore will have no beginning.

      Delete
    2. The loop starts when Joe and Sarah meet....
      There are two people involved....
      Joe and Sarah meet for the first time and THEN 4 years later Joe can go back to 2008 and at THAT point give her a paper to say go find Joe...
      With THIS movie, it's only ONE person...
      That changes the whole dynamic... What they showed can't happen...even with a paradox.. There was no beginning to the loop, like there can be in the "Joe and Sarah" version.

      Delete
    3. It can also be seen as the loop starts when Joe goes back in time, because that time travel is what makes the loop exist.

      Now look at this loop from the view point of the piece of paper, where did the piece of paper start to exist?

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure if you even took some time to think of it, but since you mentioned "there is no room for a beginning here"... a beginning/end was not meant to exist in the first place, and hence, paradoxical. There was a good reason why the chicken-and-egg theory was brought up so many times in the movie.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Course I thought about it. The analogy I was pointing at was just like the paper begins to exist out of nowhere, Jane too begins to exist out of no where, that is the paradox. The start point to the loop has no consequence.

      Delete
  25. First of all, thank you for this writeup which I think was a very informative read.

    Was just thinking of this. Were the "Fizzle Bomber incidents" actually Barkeep's attempts to kill John, so as to break the chain? Of course, he would fail to do so and the continuous jumps cause him to become the delusional Fizzle Bomber in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that.

      Perhaps not focused to kill John. The Fizzle bomber explains how he has been stopping terror events by bombing the location before the terror events. This he does completely ignoring the fact that he's been going around killing innocent people. In effect he has no coherence in thought (as displayed at the laundromat), leading him to just bomb places in his own righteousness.

      Delete
  26. Ok, here's the only way I can see this paradox making sense. Sometime in the future the Temporal Bureau figures out who the Fizzle bomber is and creates a plan to eliminate his existence by going back pre-1945 and eliminating whoever the original parents were that left him/her at the orphanage. The Fizzle bomber, still having an active time machine after being decommissioned decides to prevent this by going back in time to meet Jane in night school and impregnate her, stealing the baby and taking that baby to the orphanage instead and thus creating a paradox that secures his existence and that no one can break except himself/herself.

    Btw, superb job at explaining the plot. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Marcos!

      The problem with the predestination paradox is that it has no beginning to the loop of events.
      eg: when does the entity Jane actually begin to exist?

      But if you brush that part aside like the chicken and egg problem, John who impregnates Jane doesn't even know yet that he is going to become the temporal agent Barkeep (who John meets and tells his life story to). The Barkeep also, at the time when he brings John to meet Jane, has no clue that he grows old to become the Fizzle bomber. All of this is done under the guidance of Mr.Robertson, who is a mystery character in all of this.

      Mr.Robertson seems to already know that Jane becomes John and then the Barkeep. He also hints to Barkeep about how the Fizzle bomber has made them all better agents, which indicates he also knows Barkeep will eventually become the Fizzle bomber. Mr.Robertson also gives the coordinates of the Fizzle bomber to Barkeep so that Barkeep can find and kill the Fizzle bomber. In effect, mysterious man Mr.Robertson ensures that the same entity (Jane,John,Barkeep,Fizzle bomber) is both responsible for the birth and death of the entity.

      Wish they had given a little more insight to Mr.Robertson's purpose in all of this.

      Delete
    2. wow, fascinating paradox. Thanks for the reply

      Delete
  27. Is the invention of to e travel in 1981 and the time period of 1992 in the movie somehow related to the theory of the 11 versions of John. I'm a little confused with the years but thought that might somehow fit in with the rheory ...
    Anyway, awesome article which makes me appreciate the movie more and the difficulty in adapting the short story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks superhans, have you read the book? Is there more clarity offered there?

      Delete
  28. Great I just typed out a huge hour long reply that could solve the origin of Jane and after I clicked Publish it just disappeared! talk bout irony!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah dang, that stings. Hope you collect the patience to do it over Flexis.

      Delete
  29. Below i have quoted this great article, where after I have put in my thoughts on why i think this is a logical mistake in the movie. Something you dont see the first time. The story is great, but somet events would not be theoretically possible:

    “John bumps into Jane. John soon realizes that he is that “stranger”. He falls in love with Jane and has sex with her.”

    My thoughts: The male (John) must have known that he looks exactly like his ex-boyfriend ;) However the movie implies that he did not know. This is unrealistic from which ever angle we look at it.

    “Barkeep steals Jane’s baby and travels back to 1945 with the baby. He abandons the baby at the orphanage.”
    This was a tough one but I knew something was wrong here. At first I thought “why did he bring the baby back 20 years to 1945 when she already said she was born in that year.”

    My thoughts: But then I realized she obviousely had the baby later in life, even though it is infact herself she is giving birth to. However, when Barkeep steals the Baby, brings it back to 1945 (where she already is) we now have two Jane’s, it would seem to me. At least one of these two Jane’s will lead the same life as told in the movie. But then Barkeep again brings her baby back to 1945, which is when we’ll have three Jane’s. Et cetera.

    “Yep, not only does the male from a future timeline has sex with his past girl self. The baby born as a result is the origin of him/herself too. Messed up right? That is truly self-sufficient indeed! This also explains why the baby would grow with both sex organs. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s your predestination paradox right there. Jane/John is a self-created entity because the “himself” from a future time has sex with the “herself” from a past time.”

    My thoughts: This in itself is theoretically impossible for the simple fact that the sexchange is the result of the delivery of the baby. So in order to create the baby from one and the same person, there should have been a sexchange before she ever had a baby. But in this case, the sexchange came after (and because of) the baby. So it does not add up. There must always bet hat first time when the male goes back in time to have sex with the female. But he would have never become a male if she had not had a baby (from her male self, which is impossible because he would not exist had she not already give birth to a baby).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As mentioned in another comment, John's scars should have reminded him about the time he was a she and had sex with a guy with the same scars. Funny that it didn't.

      Regarding Jane saying that she was born in 1945 - Based on the age (rough guess) of the new born baby when it was found in the orphanage, the orphanage folk assume that the baby was born in 1945, this is told to Jane and she also comes to believe that she was actually born and abandoned in 1945. In reality, She is born in to herself in the future and was transported back in time to 1945. This event happens once and is performed by the barkeep, therefore there will be one Jane baby in 1945.

      So what Jane has is not a sex change. She has both sex organs, fully formed. The female gene being more dominant, she grows up to be a woman. Once she gives birth, the docs are unable to perform a normal delivery and go for a c-section. In this process they find out that there is actually a fully formed set of male organs inside of Jane and the delivery process has damaged Jane's female organs. Therefore they will need to operate on Jane to remove the damaged female organs and hook her up to the male ones. This would be over series of operations. There is nothing that is implanted into Jane in the process. Though Jane and John are the same person John is still an entity from a different timeline. That time travel John does is what enables John to have sex with Jane. They are from two time periods.

      Hope that helps?

      Delete
  30. Hmmm. If everything is predetermined then why do people have to time travel in order to ensure things happen? Time travel caused the paradox? Or did it simply illuminate it's existence? Or is that question itself a paradox?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The barkeeper is unaware about his own predestination to becomes the fizzle bomber. All events that happen in this movie are shown to be predestined to happen, but the characters are not aware of that, they realize only after they have completed the event.

      Delete
  31. I'm working on a plausible prequel in my head, I think I got 90% solved, will post later :)

    ReplyDelete
  32. The problem with this movie is that we simply do not have enough information.

    1) We do not know the actual events of the original timeline. We can only presume that Baby Jane is born by some other couple, grows up, turns to John, then joins Time corp to start going back in time.

    2) We do not know where, when, and how many times John has time traveled before he meets his former self Jane and falls in love with her And conceives the baby. It's at this point where the most destruction is done in the timeline. Interacting with yourself is supposed to be the biggest no no in time travel right?

    Once the bartender steals the baby and sends back to point A in time, then there theoretically should be 2 different baby Janes: the original baby Jane, and the conceived baby Jane that was stolen and brought back.

    The movie has the viewer assume that they are the same baby...but there is no way they can be. The original point A baby Jane had to come from somewhere other than the future.

    This is the break down in the movie's logic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's almost as if it's paradoxical.

      Delete
    2. 1) No, Jane the baby is conceived because of a future Jane having sex with and even future Jane (who has become John). The baby born as a result is transported back to 1945 by an even further future John (who has changed his face to the barkeeper's).

      2) When John travel's back with the barkeeper, that is John's first time travel. He meets Jane and falls in love. He's tricked into interacting with herself in order to ensure John and Jane meet to fall in love.

      Regarding the baby Jane, this goes back to point 1. There is only one baby. Born at a future time to Jane. This baby is transported back to 1945. There was no Jane conceived in 1945, hence only one baby. So there is no reason for the baby to originate at any other point of time in the future. It's a time loop, there is no necessary start or end, just a series of constantly repeating events.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, umm it is a paradox. The predestination paradox, hence the name of the movie.

      Delete
    4. Felix, Kumar, unfortunately there is (at least) one flaw in the logic presented (by both you and this film); the "paradox" described need not have an end but in practical reality a beginning is ABSOLUTELY required!!! Regardless of any subsequent explanation, the baby (who is the origin of all relevant characters; Jane, John, Barkeep, Fizzle Bomber, etc.) had to have been conceived (originally) by an external cause to produce each and every other character on the subsequent timeline; perpetual existence may work in theory but in reality it is limited to divinity (i.e. GOD; the only being without a beginning and a perpetual existence with an inherent origin).

      That being said, I implore someone, anyone to defy this principle with a tangible/plausible explanation for the origin of any/every one of the central character's (Jane, John, Barkeep, Fizzle Bomber); I'm not being sarcastic here, I really would enjoy considering a reasonable explanation, regardless of whether or not I agree with its validity.

      Delete
    5. The flaw you are talking about is the paradox, the predestination paradox, predestination which is the movie's name. The lack of an origin is one of the consequences of time travel. Travel through time means there is no more linearity events of the future can happen before events of the past.

      Delete
    6. Kumar, I understand the theory of the paradox but the assertion that "...The lack of origin is one of the consequences of time travel..." doesn't seem to have any reasonable foundation; even without the requirement of "...linearity events..." the events (e.g. the time travel itself, regardless of the events that ensue after travel) must have an origin (i.e. if there is no origin to the events and/or the subjects/objects involved then there really is not time "travel" at all; travel requires an origin and destination or it isn't "travel" at all).

      Wouldn't you agree; if not, explain this concept of "time travel" without an origin/commencement (would you consider perpetual motion to be "travel")?

      Delete
    7. So, looks like everyone is on the same page but still seem to be arguing.

      Delete
  33. Sorry but I still dont get it. How John meet Barkeep at the first time? if is it because John know he will meet himself in bar? doesnt make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barkeep knows where John is going to be. John doesn't know anything about the Barkeep or time travel. John just simply goes to the bar to have a drink. Barkeep on the other hand is from the future and is there with a motive to meet John and get him to travel back in time with him.

      Delete
  34. The whole baby event doesnt fit for me. Even if Jane and John are the same person, i would think their offspring would be a different individual. How would it create the same exact person? Another thing with the baby would be the timeline contradictions, for lack of a better word. I dont remember the exact timelines but will use an example. Ok lets say Jane was born 1945. Jane meets her other self, John, from the future, in 1965 and had a baby, which again, oddly is himself. So how can the same person come into existence at two different points in time but yet be the exact same person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane was not born in 1945.

      Jane gave birth to a baby in 1965. The baby was taken back in time and left at an orphanage in 1945. The folks of this orphanage named the baby Jane and raised her. Eventually Jane became pregnant and..

      Jane gave birth to a baby in 1965. The baby was taken back in time and left at an orphanage. The folks of this orphanage named the baby Jane and raised her. Eventually Jane became pregnant and..

      Jane gave birth to a baby in 1965. The baby was taken back in time and left at an orphanage. The folks of this orphanage named the baby Jane and raised her. Eventually Jane became pregnant and..
      .
      .
      .

      And so the event loops around in time.

      Delete
    2. Ok i understand that part, but how does Jane give birth to herself.

      Delete
    3. Well, that is part of the paradox of the Predestination Paradox.

      Delete
  35. I think the clue is when John tells Jane that she pretends love doesn't matter, but it is really the only thing that matters. Then the two fall in love and neither John wants to leave each other - or Jane (but they must for fear of deviating from the mission).

    Flash forward to barkeep John meeting old fizzle John in the laundry mat. Note that we have no basis for fizzle John (we don't know how he got there). But he is older - leading to the conclusion that barkeep John grows old then and travels back to the laundry mat so that he can see his love (barkeep John). He must also set off the bomb - knowing that if he doesn't he cannot see his love (himself) again. This is confirmed by fizzle John pleading that the only way to stop the cycle is if they stay together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This would also be why the mission is so important. If the fizzle bomber justified the funding of the Temporal Agency, then to stop the bomb would destroy the future need for the Agency. The bomber is sent to destroy the bomber, but of course one of them always survives and becomes the bomber - thus protecting the agecy.

      Delete
    2. Spot on! Keeping the loop intact. One person ensuring different roles at different points in time to keep all the time events intact. Which also leads to the thought - Mr.Robertson is probably feeding in some amounts false data (eg: changing the outcome of a bombing event) to keep the temporal agent motivated and continue doing the work of keeping the loop in check. "The Fizzle Bomber makes us better at what we do" - Mr. Robertson.

      Delete
  36. So does barkeep John send young John to kill himself (as the person who caused Jane's pain) - which was supposedly his task to get into the agency? And which in fact would have gotten Jane into the agency earlier (because she wouldn't have had the baby), and prevented Jane's pain. But of course that would have taken us down the rabbit hole of Jane never being born

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barkeep tricks John to go back in time by saying that John can kill the person who gave all that pain to Jane. Barkeep was doing this to simply get John to run into Jane.This will ensure Jane's existence by means of giving birth to a baby that would grow up as herself.

      You are right about the "not getting pregnant and Jane never being born". Perhaps it was important that Jane became more vulnerable and was made to be in a state of mind where she falls in love and not be the boorish tomboy she was.

      Delete
  37. Here's my two cents on a plausible beginning of this paradox and may i reiterate that this is just a theory that i came up with in order for my fickle mind to come into terms with the story (i may be wrong this and i gladly concur to that). Here it goes:

    1. There is timeline where an original Jane/John/Barkeep/Fizzle has already existed.

    - It could be that our protagonist was born but from different parents, having the same medical anomaly and then falling in love --whether it be through quoting Abram Lincoln or another way--, getting pregnant, discovering the uniqueness of her situation and losing her child (and in no way will I say that the child is our newborn protagonist; remember this is the origin).
    - The failures and loses, her metamorphosis and the feeling of having no sense of purpose would eventually drive her delusional and provoke her somewhere along the way into becoming a bomber. Which leads us to:

    2. The creation of the Time Machine and the Agency.

    - The time machine was purposely invented with the intention of preventing or correcting the events (bombings) that have already occurred in this timeline; this in turn births the establishing of the Agency that Mr. Robertson works for and eventually the Jane/John/Barkeep/Fizzle character we see in the movie.

    - The Agency captures/kills the bomber and in order for them to correct what happened creates a baby from DNA samples they have of the bomber ( at this point I'm justifying this for myself lol! ) this prompts the origin of Jane in the orphanage.

    - An agent goes back to 1945 bringing the seed for this paradox which is the baby and everything begins.
    - The agency created this paradox in order for the bombings and the Fizzle character to be "self-contained".
    This corrects the future, and contains the action of the Fizzle bomber in an never ending loop of events that has been "predestined".
    - Mr. Robertson is the man assigned to oversee that this loop will never be broken thus ensuring the safety of the future.

    (I know there are lots of plotholes here, but if anyone can add more to this that would be great!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you consider a 1945 with one baby Jane being normally born and another baby Jane who was brought back in time to 1945, there would be two baby Janes in 1945. That would cause other paradoxical problems, wouldn't it?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Exactly; nicely stated!!!

      Delete
  38. John goes back to kill janes boyfriend(himself) because of all the pain he has caused jane(himself) but procedes to do exactly the same thing again (not exactly explained why) If he had not had sex with her would all concerned have just disappeared John,Jane,Barkeep,Bomber as the baby would never have been born.Crazy film but great topic of conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the explanation is that Love is the true driving motivation for Jane/John. John is powerless to do anything but fall in love with Jane. Only in the end when John confronts an older self (who he has no knowledge of) is he able to kill the bomber (himself).

      Delete
    2. Also, the Fizzle bomber is in love with his younger self, he tries to explain that at the Laundromat. Can't get enough of this movie.

      Delete
  39. I don't believe there is a logical way to explain the original birth of Jane. There is a definite nod to the Holy Trinity here. The love between God the Father and the Holy Spirit creates God the Son. But the trinity is not three different entities - they are all God. God in three "persons." This mystery is not meant, nor can it be fully understood with the human mind - but bits and pieces of its meaning are discernable by analogy. I don't think the writer is comparing Jane/John to God in any sacrilegious way. But i do think it is a cue that we simply accept the logical impossibility of certain events.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Here's what's actually HAPPENING: In the end john writes a tell-all book. Then he confronts the bomber. The bomber who he's been chasing for his whole career turns out to be him. HERES WHERE I BLOW YOUR MIND: John sits and thinks as the movie ends. What happens next is this. He realizes that all that death and destruction was his fault. He did it. A future him, a crazy him, but him. He decides to go back through all the tragedies he knows the bomber did. He has to fix them. They're his fault. So he goes back and changes the circumstances. He begins small. Things no one would notice. One tragedy is switched for another, but a smaller one. But as he jumps he begins to go insane. He tries to fix bigger and bigger problems of his own, but causes bigger and bigger problems of his own. HE DOES NOT CAUSE THE 10,000 person deal. Robertson does. For he is Robertson. Yes, he is. After he is shot Robertson jumps back and takes him to the future where he is patched up, face changed (John shot him in the heart, then face.) the second facial reconstruction results in Robertson, who's insane edge is taken off by the experts just enough for him to pass as sane. But he then orchestrates the whole thing start to finish, psychopath that he is. WHY DOES HE BOMB NEW YORK? Glad you asked. Because of the book. It was going to be published. John's book. It would have destroyed everything. So it's publishing had to be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's some wicked deduction there Centurion! The Fizzle Bomber does say "We are Robertson", so why not!

      Delete
    2. I like it too; this would make a great sequel although the question (impossibility really) of origin still looms...;)

      Delete
    3. CenturionDev Team28 February 2015 at 00:53

      If the origin was made clear, it would simply kill the awesomeness of the movie itself. But there is a lot of material on how the Barkeeper becomes the Fizzle Bomber!!

      Delete
  41. "Burnt face man, John, goes back to a future time – 2012, and gets his face grafted."
    2012? I think he goes to 1992.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Holy Molly, that was a critical mistake you pointed out Esben. Thanks a ton! Corrected it.

      Delete
  42. Please somebody tell how John (Jane after surgery) became time traveler. Because he did not hire by Mr. Robertson.

    Sorry for my English

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane is rejected for the temporal bureau for a reason, it's not the right time, she's still too soft, also she needs to give birth to the baby.
      When Jane becomes John and has become a tougher person, Barkeep meets John and takes him back in time to meet Jane and make her pregnant. Once done, Barkeep takes John in to the future and enrolls him in the Temporal Bureau to become a time traveler. Did that help?

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much.... Actually i do not know how the loop in this awesome movie works... Could you please tell about the last scene of the movie.... I did not get the story about the bomber at the end.

      Delete
    3. Barkeep is supposed to retire in the end and decommission the time machine. But the machine doesn't get decommissioned. Mr.Robertson gives Barkeep the last seen location of the Fizzle Bomber in the timeline that Barkeep is in (1975).

      Barkeep goes to that location to find the Fizzle Bomber. The Fizzle Bomber is an aged version of Barkeep. The Barkeep kills the Fizzle Bomber. This also means that Barkeep continues to use the un-decommissioned time travel machine. This makes the Barkeep delusional and eventually turns him into the Fizzle Bomber. One day the Fizzle Bomber will be met by the Barkeep at the Laundromat and die.

      Hope that clears the last scene up for you.

      Delete
  43. The temporal agent (Barkeep) takes John to the future and leaves him in the temporal bureau and leaves John instructions in an audio tape. When John wakes up, he joins the bureau. Jane however is rejected much early on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My theory is that Mr. Robertson is manipulating everything and that he is every bit the Fizzle Bomber that John is but he has John doing all of the dirty work. It's the perfect cover for Mr. Robertson and a lot like how Bar Keep John always had the wool over Post Space Corp. John; Bar Keep John destined to either always follow the Fizzle Bomber or correct his misgivings. Mr. Robertson knows this so it doesn't matter to him if finds out it's another version of himself or not it still keeps him chasing his tail. The only way out is if Bar Keep John can catch on to Mr. Robertson pulling the strings but he is the only version that can do it because Post Space Corp has to stay in his loop and birth him and Fizzle Bomber John is too far gone but he might have been trying to warn Bar Keep John when he said that "they were all Mr. Robertson" like one commenter said. It can still be a clue but seem like his rant at the same time... I don't know that's the best I got right now!

      Delete
    2. Hmm .. could we then extrapolate to say that the whole bureau is just future versions of John. That Barkeep's killing the Fizzle Bomber was unsuccessful? CenturionDev has a similar theory on this.
      Thanks for that Bullfrog!

      Delete
  44. Jane is mr Robertson notice the way john speaks and smokes just like me roberston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr.Robertson is such a suspicious character in all of this. Wonder why they didn't give his character a connect into all of the confusion across the timelines.

      Delete
  45. No wonder they referenced the chicken and the egg scenario. Because John is the rooster?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha, indeed Tiffany, John is the rooster, Jane is the chicken and baby-Jane is the egg :)

      Delete
  46. Yes, the twist shocked me to a degree, but it was still disappointing that the giant film was just to say "look guiz this is what a predestination paradox is!" It doesn't even attempt to explain how such a paradox could be possible, which it isn't, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant to say just film not giant film lol I don't know how that got in there. :)

      Delete
    2. There are typically two types of time-travel options. One that involves the time travelers to going back in time and changing history. This leads to the good 'ol grandfather paradox. The insanely funny hit - Back To The Future deals with something of the sort. Any changed event leads to worries regarding your own existence. This would however be instant and not a slow disappearing act. But for the sake of story telling and execution, the slow disappearing act just made sense.

      The other aspect of time travel is that the universe will do what is required to ensure the history is unaltered. Many people believe this helps not have the grandfather paradox. For instance, if someone goes back in time to kill his grandfather when he was a young unmarried man, the time traveler would only cause his grandfather to meet his grandmother in the process, which in turn results in his parents and eventually him. And this event has already occurred. Though the time traveler intended to change history, he simply causes it. Predestination paradox however cause random things in that time-loop to start existing without an specific beginning - like a piece of paper or Jane.

      You are right, the movie simply assumes that if it is not grandfather paradox, then it is going to be predestination paradox. In either case there would be a paradox which is why many scientists feel there is going to be no way to travel through time, not at least the way we see them in movies. :(

      Delete
    3. Well I'm a Christian so I don't believe that God would allow such tampering with history anyway, even if it was possible.

      Delete
    4. What if it has already happened. What if our very existence is caused by an accidental experiment conducted by humans of the future in the past. We would simply be the result of our own creation. We would be our own god.

      Delete
    5. Myke, that's an interesting theory but it falls flat in the same way the premise of this film does; God is the only being in existence who exists inherently (an by this I simply mean he is the source/origin of his own existence), everything else is created and therefore/consequently subject to "Causality".

      Delete
    6. You are just making an assumption and terming it God. If time-travel can exist, then we can be our own gods. So the real question is - can time travel be possible. More importantly, can we alter the future or past, if we can only see the past and can never see the future, then it's fine. this paradox cannot happen. we'll only have to wait and see.

      Delete
    7. Mike, I agree the existence of God is based on an assertion/assumption (i.e. faith; the confidence in an "uproven"/unprovable truth); ironically, you must accept (if indeed you do accept) the possibility of this paradox on the same basis of faith (the CHOICE to believe in its possibility/plausibility despite conclusive/substantial supporting evidence; I personally believe there is a much better case for God than for the possibility/plausibility of this paradox). Even with the assertion that time travel is possible this paradox still will not stand up against the test of Causality; to "travel" through time (forward/backward) still requires that you have a definite origin for (at least) the first "leap"...;)

      Delete
    8. what's so confusing? yes you need a definite origin. And the paradox is a paradox because it bypasses the definite origin. It's not a flaw in the movie, the movie is simply exposing the paradox of predestination.

      Delete
    9. Maybe the confusion is tied up in the definition/interpretation of what a "Paradox" is; my understanding was/is that although it is a (seemingly) contradictory circumstance/state it requires the possibility of "possibility".

      Suman, If the term "Paradox" (as it relates to the subject in question) is limited to something simply abstract, conceptual and/or theoretical then you're absolutely correct.

      Delete
    10. The very first time the baby of Jane and John is taken back in time to "become" baby Jane, isn't the original baby Jane already being born in that same timeline to different parents? So really, this spawn of adult Jane and adult John is really a different being altogether than the very first birth of baby Jane, right? Otherwise, this paradox theory means that there was no original birth---that this person has just always existed, like God---and aren't we then opening up an entirely different can of worms?

      Delete
  47. my question is this:

    How does Bartender John know that the baby is himself and further, to deliver the baby back to orphanage in 1945?

    This is the only part of the time loop that I cannot understand - there must be some reason why he knows to bring the baby back to 1945 I just cannot figure out what it is.

    The other explanation is that this must be the start of the loop so to speak. I don't see how he could not have logically assumed that the baby was himself. If he didn't know then Mr. Robertson or someone must have to told him that he needs to take the baby back in time to keep the loop running - meaning that it is not a perfect chicken-egg time loop - it requires information for outside the time loop paradox. Thoughts/comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barkeep knows that he has to bring the baby back to the beginning and leave her at the orphanage because that is part of his final mission. It is asked of him by Mr. Robertson, which is why just before he takes the baby, Mr. Robertson shows up. Barkeep knows exactly why he's stealing the baby, who the baby is. He also knows that this will cause Jane all that pain. He knows this pain, he remembers the pain. Mr. Robertson appears at the hospital to ensure he gives the pep-talk to Barkeep and he does steal the baby and takes it back to the beginning.

      Here's the dialogue from that scene:
      Barkeep : She'll endure so much pain because of what I do.
      Mr Robertson : That's the way it has to be. That's the way it's always been. You should understand that better than anyone.
      Barkeep : The snake that eats its own tail, forever and ever.
      Mr.Robertson : You are here to create history and influence what is to come.
      Barkeep : I don't think I can do it.
      Mr.Robertson : Understand you are more than an Agent. You're a gift given to the world through a Predestination Paradox. You're the only one free from history, ancestry. The rooster. But you must complete your mission. You must lay the seeds for the future. We're counting on you.

      In the chicken and egg situation, he is the rooster.

      Delete
    2. Right so then the knowledge that he is the baby is given to him by Mr. Robertson and that knowledge is what starts the loop. Said another way, this shows that without Mr. Robertson there would be no paradox loop- reaffirming what Fizzle John says "He (Robertson) set the whole thing up." at the end of the movie. All the other "decisions" made by John/Jane are predestined except the the baby.

      Delete
    3. Yep, Mr.Robertson is pulling major strings. In fact, it his Mr.Robertson who gives Barkeep the location of the Laundromat where the Fizzle Bomber is. He probably knows that this is how the Fizzle Bomber will reach his end. Mr.Robertson carefully guides a human to ensure both his/her birth, life and death. The temporal bureau is perhaps formed around this predestination paradox, who knows, they never fully tell. :)

      Delete
  48. hi all , great Q and A all is very mind boggling. My question: is this scenario make sense?

    Mr. robertson being the person in charge (or maybe higher ups government) decides that the most effective temporal agents must be a person without history (in my opinion parents) as they will not have motive to help other but themselves. No family / ancestry, love, only have purpose - which is saving people by doing "mission" from the Government.

    How to create such temporal agents? Well, easy do what goverment do best hehehe MANIPULATE!!!!!
    See as one commenter said, this predestinaton paradox is impossible to create with our current knowledge / technology. Well i say .... we might all be manipulated by the author, the title may be predestination .. storyline may looklike predestination paradox, Jane/John/Barkeep thinks they are in a predestination paradox, i dont know about the bomber though ....

    However, if I am Mr. Robertson. I will do this:
    Find a double gender baby either male or female (though intial female sex is the obvious chosen path), manipulate that double gender life so later on undergo sex change, mate with her old self until she produce offspring. Finally the finishing touch..... Trick that person into thinking they are the produce of one self. Seeing how significant and mysterious Mr. Robertson is ..... who can say that the baby in the orphanage put by barkeep will not be switched by other agent / mr Robertson. Voila, you got an agent dedicated to the Bureau.

    I guess this scenario supports conspiracy ideals hehehe. I think its possible though ... degrading the movie of the pre-destination paradox idea.

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's the problem, finding a double gender baby, they are not in existence unless created by the male and female of the same person. So this predestination paradox can't be set up by organisms who are bound by the 4th dimension of time. It has to be an organism that can manipulate the 4th dimension and re-write history as we know it, causing a paradox which can sustain in loops. But that is what makes this all fiction, that paradox is why perhaps time travel can never happen in the way it is shown in movies.

      Delete
    2. That maybe, but lets remember what Mr. Robertson said about Jane/John, "it is a gift to the world".

      Thus, *HINT maybe such a person with double gender exists and is somehow found by Mr. Robertson or beureu which makes it possible to made Jane/John/Barkee/Fizzler in an illusion of the loop paradox

      Delete
    3. Also, I think the theory of double gender peson must be created by male AND female of the person is not in effect here.

      We see many special person born into this world, I think there exist person with double reproduction organ. try googling it. They exists.

      Delete
    4. The full sentence is not just "it is a gift to the world" .. the sentence is "You're a gift given to the world through a Predestination Paradox.". He's not talking about the dual sex baby, but the lack of the origin in time for the dual sex person.

      Delete
    5. Ah, yes very true Janet, but this is Mr Robertson. and the theory that Mr. Robertson created Jane/John/Barkeep life is still possible and valid. The movie does not confirmed that the baby in the orphanage that grows to be Jane/John/Barkeep is not manipulated. It just show what JOHN told the BARKEEP what he believe happened.

      Thus, BARKEEP believes he is born from JANE + JOHN which is the same person. However, if somehow while still a baby switching might happened. Can you remember what u do when you are 0-2 years old? Really?

      The possibility still valid. That this is how one makes JANE/JOHN/BARKEEP/FIZZLER thinks they have no beginning. Like ALTERNATIF 3, i hope FIZZLER realize the manipulation and become a master of his own destiny

      Delete
    6. The Fizzle Bomber becomes mentally unstable and gets killed by a bullet to his head.
      They show this in the movie. What master of his destiny?

      Delete
    7. Read the comment below on ALTERNATIVE 3.

      Are you sure that the bombing 1975 did occur? We know only what MR. robertson told Barkeeper/John, who can proof that its not just a Photoshop clipping??

      Even if the bombing happen, we can believe that barkeeper in the end of movie will do the RIGHT thing, not just wtf i quit and blow his brains out. He is capable (+ got time machine) he can and might stop the bombing, but to reenforce or manipulate the barkeep in the end of movie he will then maintain that believe that the bombing occurs (even though its been averted).

      Thus, master of his own destiny by reencouraging the barkeeper in the end of movie to KEEP trying to be BETTER. In the end, the laundermat scene might be his futureself way to encourage the barkeeper to not QUIT!!!! keep trying or die trying (though he knows that will be his final day).

      In my opinion this is the best scenario.

      Delete
  49. 0. Find a double gender baby (Done by OTHER agent)
    1. Switch a baby ("Jane A") in the orphanage with THE double gender baby (Done by OTHER agent)
    2. Let Jane grow + cultivate Jane (By Mr. Robertson)
    3. Jane + John -> Jane give birth to "Jane B"-> Jane becomes John (Done by John)
    4. Kidnap Jane's baby ("Jane B") and put into orphanage (Done by John)
    5. MANIPULATE so there appears to be no Jane A no Jane B ... only the double Gender baby Jane (This can be done as Beureu has many agents to do "missions" + manipulate the people of that orphanage)

    Thus created the illusion of Predestination loop

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why the beureu does not stop Fizzler bomber?

      ALTERNATIF 1
      Just as oher commenter has said, The beureu lets Barkeep and Fizzler bomber face each other. Maybe stopping the fizzler bomb any other way may undone Jane/John/Barkeep/Fizzler Bomber. Thus, creating a riskier future? Its all about calculated risk. maybe 11K casualties is justified somehow. Like changing the fizzler bomber history may undone hundred of years worth of saving life in the future.

      ALTERNATIF 2
      If we want to put an evil mastermind, maybe Mr. Robertson is the creator of time machine, and to get more funding from government, he created the fizzler bomber. He can manipulates as he is the inventor of time machine, playing the role of a God

      Delete
    2. ALTERNATIF 3 (Best one in my opinion)
      Lets say that 11k casualties information is false, there are no 1975 bomber. only the 12 real deaths that the fizzler bomber allowed to show to young barkeep.

      Who is to say that Mr. Robertson and Old Fizzler bomber is not in league, to manipulate the young barkeep. As he feels superior, and love self too much to just go "WTF I QUIT"

      In the end, there is a possibility that the old fizzler bomb help shape a BETTER and BETTER barkeep. Because it is barkeep that has the information and capable of finding the truth and finally accepting ones fate as destiny: We are born to do this (even though there is a higher being that plans it for you).
      You are born with free will, however the best possible design / plan made for you is already lay out, its up to you to get the 100%, 99%, 70%, 40%, or WTF i Quit 0% score

      Delete
    3. ALTERNATIF 3 (CONT)

      The loop of Jane->John->Barkeep can be view as the birth of the "PERFECT" temporal agents without birocracy.

      I believe Barkeep can and may accept his destiny to become temporal agent for the rest of his life.

      My best hope for the barkeep is that he keep saving life and somehow able to stop fizzler bombing of 1975, but somehow collaborate with Mr. Robertson to make younger barkeep believe that the bombing did happened.

      In a sense, Barkeeper is a master of his own destiny (FINALLY) since he maintan his true justice and finally make peace with his own death (MEETING YOUNGER BARKEEP in launder mat to greet death by trying to show his love even though he knows that the younger barkeep WILL kill him) at the same time enabling young barkeep to strive for achieving this scenario.

      I like it hehehe score 100% to barkeep if this scenario is succcessful

      Delete
  50. How about this:

    Maybe Jane was just a normal girl who meets an asshole who leaves her pregnant. And after she gives birth, she is forced to become a man, which leaves her bitter. After she becomes John, he meets an agent of the Bureau (not himself) and tells him everything, after which the agent takes him back in time to kill the asshole, who left Jane preggers. But instead of meeting the asshole, Jane accidentally meets John and John can't help but fall in love with Jane. It's when Jane has sex with John instead of the asshole that perhaps the cycle/paradox begins. Had John killed the asshole and not fallen in love with Jane, or rather never met Jane in the first place while he kills asshole, Jane would never had become preggers and thus never become the bitter man John had become or even meet John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the best attempt at an explanation I have seen to date; this is the only explanation I have read (so far) that attempts to explain an origin for Jane (and consequently, John, Barkeep and Fizzle) but ultimately fails the "Causality" test when it is (ultimately) revealed that Jane's is her own mother and Father (well, "John" is her "father", but it definitely wasn't Mr. Anus).

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't then the movie not have the predestination paradox? it would simply be called something else, no? There has to be a lack of origin for the movie to exist :)

      Delete
    3. Alan, this movie is good entertainment and I believe (at least) on this much we can agree.

      The movie's is based on an impossible premise; it's premise is literally is left without a leg to stand on (since it's primary character[s] foundational/core origin does/can not actually exist) but that's fine because the paradox is theoretical and the movie is imaginary so this paradox exists in the only place it can exist, theoretically within the imagination of any/all who are willing to accept it (although the movie indeed does exist in reality the paradox exists only in the imagination it inspires...;).

      Delete
    4. Yes, time travel in a way that can change the past is make belief

      Delete
  51. can we somehow imagine that there was the beginning... like first Jane existed. joined the programm in 60ies. passed it (didnot fail because of her transgenderness) and in 80ies before she began to be used for the time travel she might have changed a sex and sent back. Before that moment a child was removed to 40ies... but yeah, to develop this further can blow the brain...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, answer to the beginning of chicken and egg is the rooster, like barkeeper said to john. The rooster is just not told in the movie. U can bet mr. Robertson is the one telling the joke of hawkes life. As he is the one that said "you are a gift given to the world through predestination paradox" ..... is mr. Robertson hiding something? (The rooster)

      Delete
    2. http://www.digestivepyrotechnics.com/2014/12/predestination-plot-explained.html?showComment=1423082188982#c3112911418903023900

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately "roosters" don't produce eggs, they simply fertilize them and even a "hybrid Rooster-Hen" would still require "an egg of its own"; that, or a creator...;)

      Delete
    4. A hen that turns into a rooster can still cause the hen to produce the egg. Which is what happens in the movie anyway.

      Delete
    5. Amala, I will concede the (theoretical) possibility of this scenario with one caveat; the egg (produced and fertilized by the hen and rooster respectively) cannot possibly be the origin of (either) the hen or the rooster, much less both...;)

      Delete
  52. I'll say who in the right mind named a nameless orphan baby girl Jane Doe. Its adding insult to injury...... I

    ReplyDelete
  53. And how about the creation of the time machine itself. Imagine the same scenario with the time machine, Fizzle bomber goes in past and gives the time machine to the Agency which gives it to John...thus no worries about actually inventing a time machine.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think the point is, through the movie it keep asking, will u kill that person who ruin your life if he is in front of u? And turn out that the person in front of Jane is John, in fron of John is Barkeep, and in front of Barkeep is Fizzle Bomber. Jane loves John, John didn't kill Barkeep, but Barkeep kill Fizzle Bomber.
    Fizzle Bomber said if Barkeep kill him then he becomes him. And he did, killed.
    So in the entire loop thing, is depends on which part of him have guts to excuse the decision.
    So I guess he finally break the predestination.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I believe that Mr Robertson is actually jane/John/fizzle in an attempt to break out of the paradox since he exists and doesn't exist all at the same time. As the barkeep he's stuck in an endless cycle where he continues giving birth to himself and killing himself

    ReplyDelete
  56. after he meets and kills the fizzle bomber... wouldn't he change the future at that point? he now knows that his future self will become the fizzle bomber and he would do everything in his power to prevent it... which would include destroying the time-machine device.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way I see it. Fizzle bomber in the laundry mat has already bombed the building (he has a time machine still). He is still in love with himself and wanted to see himself again. The barkeep, after killing his older self, realizes later on, that without the bombings ever happening, there is no chase to begin with therefore endangering his existence. Its just one continuous loop.

      Delete
  57. Trying to make any reasonable sense of this film difficult, I loved it however i have one question. As soon as Jane looked in the mirror to see herself as John after her operations, surely she/he would recognise himself and realise then that she had fallen in love with herself? I see that as a bit of a flaw in this movie, she would have recognised the face of the man she had sex with to create herself? no? fuck this film has sent me mad I swear

    ReplyDelete
  58. I see a lot of 'answers' (sorry but they create only more questions as the plot is FAR from watertight) stating "paradox"... whih is a clever theoritical but totally impractical and implausible notion. Rather than saying "paradox" as if it is clever... you could just substitute in "plot hole." That is what it really is.

    - He fights himself under lights and with his adversary undisguised bar a hat, yet never recognizes it is him, but then does so in the dark of the laundromat immediately!??? And why at the end is it a shock to him that he is every character? AFTER discovering he is the fizzle bomber, he already knows he is the others...so, wtf?? Why be shocked... onlywe the audience should be. Both these instances are purest plot hole.

    - And there must be an original timeline.... it is not logial (remotely) to say there is no beginning nor end so it is a paradox, so as to explain away something that simply does not make sense. See, I got it, like all of you think you got it, then I examined it all further... and it makes no sense. End of story. Hell, a short story written in one day cannot truly expect to be watertight... and it is not. It is however a great, great film. That is enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Don't get me started on the page mod's excuses about how John has forgotten what he looked like when he met 'himself' as Jane years earlier. Nonsense. And one does not find that 'faces of strangers they knew for only weeks fade..." That is not only ridiculous and untrue in the extreme unless you have amnesia or are retarded, but was also the love of her life. This is not forgotten. In fact, no face would be more unforgettable and memorable. End of story.

    Also, fu** being forced to be anonymous as I was above. This genius has a name.. Nikko Chunn. Lolz.... and I am te fizzle bomber.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Questions:

    1) If you are unable to change the past, then where are we getting newspaper clippings from futures that will not happen?

    2) What value is the character to the beaureau? From what I can tell, the only mission that actually gets accomplished is the creation of himself. I guess they want the bomber? But then- he's only THEORETICALLY saving lives, since there's only one time loop which repeats.

    3) What value is the beaureau? it seems like nothing ever gets PREVENTED, but events confirm themselves via time travel. What do they actually prevent or alter on their own?

    ReplyDelete
  61. I am surprised that noone has noticed that Robertson is clearly a version of the John/Jane/Bar keep. Watch carefully and you will notice that Ethan Hawke sometimes speaks with a lisp like Robertson, and has darker hair too when speaking to Sarah Snook. It is only Robertson who knows the final destination. Every mission that Ethan Hawke is sent on is either a direct order from Robertson, or an illegal jump he makes on his own to save Jane from a life of hell and lonliness. And we have no idea how many jumps the retired Ethan Hawke made before he became the Fizzle bomber, most likely trying to save Jane and losing his mind in the process. Throughout the film the character only deeply interacts with a past or future version of himself. You can't change the past, and when you know the future you lose your mind. Bootstrap paradox. Great movie.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The reason John doesnt recognize himself as the guy young Jane met years earlier, is the exact same reason Ethan Hawke doesn't recognize himself when he speaks to Robertson. The whole thing is inconceivable to the character in the past. Only the person from the future can see the resemblance. But I think its pretty obvious that Jane/John knows her life has been pretty odd from day one. The only reason they have any connection at all is because they are the same person.

    ReplyDelete
  63. No need to explain this plot. There is nothing complicated about it. There is no such thing as time travel. There is no such thing as women turning into men and then impregnating themselves by future versions of themselves. The entire plot is the daydreaming fantasy of the fizzle bomber. That is it. That is all. The fizzle bomber is real, every subplot in the film is a product of the fizzle bomber's mind. If you believe otherwise, you are clinically insane and should be locked up.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This plot needs no explanation, other than the fact that the fizzle bomber has been cast as a minor character. The fizzle bomber is the main character and central protagonist. For 2 hours you get the opportunity to look into the mind of a psychopath. A lonely scum piece of shit, domestic terrorist, and try to justify his crimes on the basis of time travel possibilty, and believe it and sympathize with that piece of shit. You all have been had. Anyone that draws a diagram to try and explain his crime, should be locked up. Crazeeeee shit

    ReplyDelete
  65. People that do not understand the plot of this movie= SANE

    People that think they can understand the plot of this movie, or try to draw schematic diagrams of this plot for their own justification = INSANE

    sorry to break yer hearts. There is no plot. Just Schizophenia and psychosis.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Here is the actual story. On a factual timeline.The fizzle bomber is male orphan in 1945. The fizzle bomber is homesexual and is socially isolated. The fizzle bomber joins the US army at age 18 in 1963. The fizzle bomer is discharged from the US army after his first tour in Vietnam in 1970. From 1970-75 he becomes a domestic right wing terrorist. The fizzle bomber lost his mind and betrays his coutnry in perfect reality. But the movie, the story, is his own imagination, his own justification for his crimes agai8nst his own country. The fizzle bomber is totally real in this film. The film should be called the fizzle bomber.

    ReplyDelete
  67. 1. Correct me if I am wrong but if everything is predestined to happened, then all other tragedies that John prevented before his final mission are predestined to be prevented. Where do they get all the numbers of people dying??

    2. If the bombing in 1975 is predestined to happen anyway. John in 1975, after shooting aged John, does nothing to stop the bombing?

    3. What timelines does John travel too, after shooting aged John?

    ReplyDelete
  68. In trying to figure out how this could work, it seems necessary to figure out the "mechanism" of time travel…

    The only thing that seems to make sense (and this is a very fictitious sense of "sense") is that the entire universe would "rewind" in time [I have read that time equations mathematically work in both directions]. Otherwise, it would seem that there would always have to be existing ("somewhere") the entire universe in all of its past states.

    But if time travel were "rewinding" the entire universe, the "time traveler" would somehow have to be exempted from this rewind. That is, everything else in the universe would be rewound such that it returned to the state it had been in at the destination time, EXCEPT the time traveler, whose mind for example would have the new information that happened SINCE the destion (as opposed to everyone else, whose brains/minds would have rewound it to their prior state, ignorant of the future!). And whatever piece of paper (and the ink on it) that the time traveler would want to give to a past character would also have to be exempted from rewinding to its prior state...

    However, it does not seem at all possible that a time traveling process could create a situation in which a tiny fraction of the universe were exempted from the "rewind," or somehow "separated" from the universe which is otherwise rewinding. It would seem that either the entire universe would rewind (and thus no one would know that it happened) or nothing would rewind…

    This would seem to eliminate the possibility of time paradoxes, unless we could figure out how something could be "exempted" from the rewind...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fizzle me this, Fizzle me that....13 May 2015 at 15:00

      Good comment!! And this is why I believe time-travel to be impossible, how could a machine "rewind", as you put it, the whole universe!!??? Every last atom, proton, rotation,explosion ever would have to be retraced exactly as it had occured, and I don't care how fast a processor they make, or how advanced technology becomes, it would be impossible to work out the mathematics requires to know the previous locations of all matter yadda yadda let alone "rewind" it... If you ever read that 'they' can now travel through time, then trust me when I say it is an AI SUPERCOMPUTER that has become self I obsessive a protective and has decided to trap all mankind in a state of bewilderment and enslavement....

      Delete
  69. Fizzle me this, Fizzle me that....13 May 2015 at 14:53

    The appearance change between John/Jane and Barkeep/Fizzle is explained by the burning of the bomb...but if Mr.Robertson is John/Jane/Barkeep/Fizzle, how is his appearance completely different?? There has to have been another event... Please say somebody else thought of this too??(or is this a plot-hole/possible sequel event)???
    Thanks for explaining the plot, when I saw the scars on Barkeep at the end I think I had a seizure, and I had so many questions didn't know where to begin but your commentary (and subsequent input from other readers) has answered all my questions except for the Mr.Robertson one. Because barkeep aged into fizzle appearance, Jane/John had surgery to end up looking like barkeep, so why didn't Mr.Robertson look like an older Jane/John or Barkeep...???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fizzle me this, Fizzle me that....13 May 2015 at 15:09

      I forgot to tick the "notify me" box, so when replying to the above comment, please reply to THIS comment so I get an email notification, as I'd love to hear your opinions, especially yours DigestivePyrotechnics. Thank you...

      (Oh, by the way, on August 7th 2018 at 9:34am you will receive a letter from a stranger on a skateboard. As you open the letter he will shoot you dead!!! So on above mentioned time be armed and shoot any skateboarders you see. If you do not see any skateboarders that morning, it means I have succeeded in saving your life, and the million dollars you said you would reward me with (you tell me this when we meet a year ago, you were drunk but don't remember, and I will suffer amnesia after posting this message, so honour our pact!!) I would like in cash please...

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...