4 ms·

But is that really the case...? Many years ago I commenter on Slashdot gave his (or her, don't remember) take on the movie ending and since then I had to compl

by Pamar 9y ago

But is that really the case...? Many years ago I commenter on Slashdot gave his (or her, don't remember) take on the movie ending and since then I had to completely re-evaluate the whole thing. The film is now old, but... << SPOILER >> . . . . . . . . . . When Tom Cruise's is captured they put the "halo" containment device on him. If you remember, when they did the same to the guy who attempted to murder his wife at the start of the movie, he asked, understendably worried, what would happen to him, and the policeman answered something like "you will just dream what you want to dream". Ok, now consider that everything that happens from the moment that Cruise was arrested until the end is... a device-induced dream. He was framed for murder, and... he just spends his life (or an untold number of years) in confinment - but he dreams the whole ending. Over and over... This blew me away. Especially because it could hardly be more Dickian than this, while at my first watching the ending was too damn sugary/optimist/Hollywood for my tastes.

the_af 9y ago
That alternative interpretation of the ending is well-known. I'd definitely prefer for it to be true. However, it's non-canon and there's no indication the scriptwriters actually intended for this interpretation to be true (it'd be awesome if it was). Even with this interpretation, the ending would be completely at odds with PKD's story. In the story, Anderton (Cruise's character in the movie) wants the system to work; the conspiracy wants to undermine Precrime. Because Anderton wants Precrime to go on, he actually commits the crime he was accused of(he indeed shoots his victim), thus showing the world Precrime works. Notice how the message of the movie is "Precrime is wrong" while the message of the story is "Precrime must go on" :)
Jtsummers 9y ago
But in the story the protagonist chooses a fate, whereas in the movie (under this interpretation) the fate is chosen for him. I will grant, this movie interpretation does make it more Dickian than the more common one. It is still a different message than the story.

by Pamar 9y ago

the_af 9y ago

That alternative interpretation of the ending is well-known. I'd definitely prefer for it to be true. However, it's non-canon and there's no indication the scriptwriters actually intended for this interpretation to be true (it'd be awesome if it was). Even with this interpretation, the ending would be completely at odds with PKD's story. In the story, Anderton (Cruise's character in the movie) wants the system to work; the conspiracy wants to undermine Precrime. Because Anderton wants Precrime to go on, he actually commits the crime he was accused of(he indeed shoots his victim), thus showing the world Precrime works. Notice how the message of the movie is "Precrime is wrong" while the message of the story is "Precrime must go on" :)

Jtsummers 9y ago

But in the story the protagonist chooses a fate, whereas in the movie (under this interpretation) the fate is chosen for him. I will grant, this movie interpretation does make it more Dickian than the more common one. It is still a different message than the story.