Talk:The Butterfly Effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Character Introductions

The only character that is introduced before the plot section is Even Treborn. However, in the plot section references are made to Kayleigh and Andrea without first letting readers know who they are. The plot section is also kind of sloppy. I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so would anyone be able to clean this up a bit? Tpoore1 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Source of Title

Concerning the source of the title, there is a second possibility -- L. Sprague de Camp wrote a story called "Gun For Dinosaur," in which a hunter who goes back in time to hunt a dinosaur changes the future by accidently stepping on a butterfly. The changes magnify over time, similar to what the characters in this movie experience.

I'll not change the page, since I don't know how relevant this connection might be, but bring it up for discussion.

Are you sure it wasn't "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury? - angrysquirrel 21:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury is a story about a hunter who goes back in time to hunt dinosaurs, steps on a butterfly, and thus changes the future, so I'm pretty sure that if there is a source of the title, it was that. What was "Gun For Dinosaur" about? Twilight 15:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The film's title clearly refers primarily to Lorentz's term "The Butterfly Effect" -- rather than to Bradbury, the original source. The sentence structure here (naming Bradbury before Lorentz) implies that the movie studio read Bradbury and then coined the term "The Butterfly Effect" independently of Lorentz.

I agree. The film even opens with a written description of the butterfly effect in the Lorentz sense. I was a little startled to see it attributed to Bradbury here, though it's true that Bradbury's story has a similar theme. And a butterfly. Clampton 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Ending?

It is strange, but when I saw the film the ending was different: when in the clinic (fifth timeline) Evan asked his mother to bring an old film showing his being born. She did so, but he wasn't allowed by his doctor to watch it and thus he broke in an office of his doctor and travelled to the past, commiting suicide in the womb by strangling himself with the umbilical cord. He did so as through the movie he saw that he was the fault in the whole story, since, except for the fact that he was the reason Keyleigh stayed with her father instead living with her mother, in some point he and his mother went to a fortuneteller a night they were out, but the fortuneteller became confused by the fact that Evan had no line of life in his hand and that he wasn't supposed to be alive. His mother later told him that his birth was a miracle and that two previous times she had unsuccessfully tried to have a baby with Evan's father. As Evan put all this together, he decided to act as he did: indeed he was not supposed to exist. The present was then corrected: Evan's mother got married again and had a baby with her new husband, while Kayleigh married Lenny. I don't remember about Tommy but he was all right as well. Does anyone know about this alternative version of the film? It seems pretty different from the one described in the article --Bill the Greek 07:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have both versions in a special edition DVD. The changes to the director's cut were subtle, but it made a heck of a lot of difference to the storyline, as it turned the downbeat and depressing original story, in which the reasons for Evan's time springing are left a mystery, into an even more depressing and downbeat story and added (IMHO) a pointless storyline about mysticism which seemed oddly out of place. I'm not sure of the general reaction to the Director's Cut, but everyone I've spoken to preferred the original. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill the Greek, you saw the Director's Cut. The ending and a few other elements are quite different from the Theatrical cut that the entry describes. I'm surprised the DC isn't mentioned in the entry anywhere.

Having seen only the TC, I don't know anything about the DC. Maybe you will write something about it? --Elenthel

I'm way to lazy to read if anyone else said this already, but heres what i think: my friend told me about the DC where he kills himself in the womb. but i found out just a few months ago that they came out with a sequel, and though i never say it, i think they decided not to kill off the main character for sequel proposes. And i heard that the sequel wasn't any good so i dont plan on watching it. If someone has seen the 2nd one, pls tell me about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snakpak (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The sequel was written and directed by completely different people and shares none of the same actors (and, from what I've read, it was apparently pretty bad). I think it's safe to say there was never any plan for a sequel when they made the first one. - Dark T Zeratul 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the directors cut because it shows how Evan was willing to do anything for y=the people he loved, and properly shows the effects of the chaos theory.

Me and two of my friends spent the night trying to figure out this moives different endings. We ended up finding 4 different endings! Our brains were exploading to say the least. I tried to detail these in the section on the page. Feel free to make them better.- Kalimia (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At some point in the past this article has been changed by someone who has seen an alternative ending to the film:

"This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elenthel (Talk | contribs) at 22:11, 19 August 2005. It may differ significantly from the current revision.:

'The sixth timeline:

At last everything is fine. Nothing stops Tommy and Kayleigh from moving to their mother's place, and they are raised properly. Tommy (once again) becomes a priest. Lenny is Evan's roommate, as they study in the university. The paradox is that in order to save Kayleigh and the rest Evan had to refuse from being with her. Evan burns all his diaries and films, as he is content with the present. In the very end of film he occasionally meets Kayleigh in the street. She is looking good. Evan walks away, satisfied."

what whoever edited the article may not have realized is that completely different endings were incorporated when the movie was released in different forms DVD, VCD and theatrical, no one ending is therefore correct and all should be mentioned in the article. if anyone knows for certain why the film was released in this fashion,i think it would be an interesting addition to the article as well. - Tom, 23 June 2008

Did anyone take into consideration of his father. What he changed. Since the fortune teller told Evan that he didn't belong anywhere and Evan's mother kept having miscarriages, cause his father kept going back in time to make sure she was able to have a child. That would then cause everything Evan did to be wrong except to make it where he wouldn't be born. You all are starting with Evan and not his father. If this was the case then Evan himself would be the butterfly effect and not the cause.--Gshaunsweeney (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that there is a 63 word sentence explaining one of the alt. endings. I'm not much of a grammer expert to fix it, but its very hard to understand with such a long run-on sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.68.130 (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Film

These were removed, can be seen at [1].

Would I be terribly out of line if I were to create a separate section on this page for the temporal inconsistencies in the film? 24.250.20.158 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)loodog

Seems like a good idea to me. SonOfNothing 23:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What is it with the "I don't think it is a mistake"? It should be discussed in the discussion page, not in the article itself... Please decide. Raistlin8r 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick note on my last edit to "Temporal Inconsistencies," since I couldn't include it all in the history notes. I removed the following line: "In the third timeline Evan asks Kayleigh's dad if he remembers him. However in this timeline he would have never had talked to him in the first place." This is not inconsistent at all. Evan's first major change (prompting the second timeline) happened at age seven. The second major change (prompting the third timeline) happened at age thirteen. The third timeline, then, incorporates Evan's original life up to age seven, the second timeline from age seven to age thirteen, and any changes that resulted from Evan's new actions at age thirteen. Because his talk with Kayleigh's father would still be a part of the third timeline, it is not inconsistent to for Kayleigh's father to remember it. Tuckdogg 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, in the first inconcistency it is mentioned that the stigmata should have remained there when he went into prison, yet the cigarette scar from his first flashback also appeared suddenly. Doesn't this invalidate the inconsistency?James Delgado 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Under "Production Mistakes" it is written that "Evan tries to prove to his cellmate that Jesus speaks to him in his dreams by jumping back in time to his childhood and scarring his palms to create a "Stigmata" sign. But if he had already changed time, the scars would already exist and this plan would not work." First, how is this a production mistake? Second, what evidence is there that he had "already" changed time?

One of the inconsistencies currently listed is as follows: "The reason Evan looked into one of his diaries in the first place, was that girl he met when he went out with Thumper. In the second timeline, he couldn't have met her since he was Kayleigh's boyfriend, thus he wouldn't have a reason to look at his diaries at the time."

However, throughout the movie, Evan appears to be aware of his "real" timeline -- the timeline that involves him jumping back and forth between the present and the past. So even if during the second timeline there is nothing to motivate him to read his diary, he knows that the only way to change his present is to go back in time by reading his diary. This is not an inconsistency if one buys into the initial suspension of disbelief that includes, among others, Evan's knowledge of all the timelines he traverses in the movie. This "inconsistency" is not, and should be removed from the entry.

i recall a part in the movie where Evan talks to a doctor about how he has all the momeries of some 40 years or something. the way i understand it is that his hard drive is filling up from 3 lifetime's worth of memory cause he DOES remember everything that happens, or rather you see the movie from his perspective, and he pretty much remembers doing everything that the "viewer" sees

75.4.177.78 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed Evan started writing his journals after that day he (or Tommy, whatever) made the murderer drawings. His first writings are about playing with Tommy and Kayleigh and their "real dad". If so, while talking to Carlos in prison, how was he able to return to that day if he didn't write about it? 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.254.153.10 (talk)

Title

I think the title refers to a 'classic' or at least well known example of Chaos Theory: That a Butterfly flapping its wings in e.g. South America can determine if the weather is sunny or raining in e.g. London 6 months later. (I think Ray Bradburys book was referring to this, rather than being the origin.)

IIRC, the original example used a seagull, however after Lorenz attractor became popular it was changed to a butterfly, because the attractor's appearance resembled a butterfly under certain conditions. Vjasper 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In the sense described above the film's title is something of a misnomer. The essential element of the butterfly effect in general terms is that different scenarios which are initially unmeasurably different, though not indentical, produce radically different and easily distinguished outcomes. However in this film, all the changes made by the leading character are simple and direct reworkings of events which are easily identifiable. Although the changes made by the leading character produce some unintended consequences, the changes initially made to the timeline are rather too blatent and direct to qualify as butterfly effects IMO. Fizzackerly 13:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Director's Cut

I think the director's cut of the movie lends credence to the idea that Evan really is suffering from some sort of brain malfunction (as opposed to having the supernatural ability to mess with time). I haven't seen the TC, but I'm not sure what difference it would make if I did. (Ha ha! chaos theory...) My qualm with the article is that it is written with the assumption that he actually has this power. -- 24.225.247.157 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The point of the director's cut was that if he never had anything to do with anything, then things would have worked out better for everyone around him. That he was the one who made things worse (by accident). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And ofcource 3 times in the other timelines since she had 3 other spontanious abortations before the "miracle baby" line that we saw. I think that the DC version is a totally different movie and that the original was the best one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azylum (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Experiences in different timelines

"Following each change to the timeline, Evan assimilates the memories associated with it despite never having "experienced" the events detailed in his memories, yet is also ignorant of many facets of the new timeline, despite having "experienced" them in the new version of the timeline."

Isn't it possible that the mere shock of suddenly being in that different timeline when first experiencing it (where he appears in bed with Kayleigh) would be enough for him to forget some of the concrete memories. I noticed that he had no trouble finding the bathroom whatsoever, possible indicating that his subconciousness knows some of the routines his newest self has. However, this can – of course – be a simple mistake.

About his memory

Didn't he suffer damage to his brain each time he went through time, to the point that in some of his last attempts, he had a nosebleed, and the doctor's brain scan indicated his brain was severely damage? Also, some of his personality accumulated in his altered life does show through. I noticed that in the second timeline, his killing Tommy shows a personality more consistent with his reckless one, than his original personality.

• He actually had a nosebleed on most of them, but the last one was the most obvious. Mushrom 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The doctor said in one of the timelines that he had brain hemoraging in the memory quadrant. Evan goes on to explain that it appears that he has shoved 14 years of memories in his head in a 1 year period.

I thought about this when I first saw the movie. Every timeline altering made his brain hemorrhage more prominent (he rewired the neurons in his brain to make up for the timeline and memory changes, I believe), to the extent that the doctor said he'd die soon. I expected a sad ending, then, because I didn't believe Evan could survive. However, he apparently fixes his brain with his last time travel. Presumably we are supposed to be led to believe that it's because he never meets Kayleigh again in this last timeline, and never travels through time, and never gains the brain hemorrhage, and lives happily ever after. But I thought the whole point was that the brain was damaged because it didn't rely on any of the timelines, and because the timelines were altered dramatically, not in spite of? After all, he rewrites the timelines to the extent that he erases his earlier time travels, but the brain hemorrhage gets worse every time. I find the ending to be inconsistent with this. --Spug 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

It is amazing how you can see a movie many times, yet still find something new every time you see it. I watched it tonight for the first time in months, and noticed one of the pennants on the wall in the second timeline says "Bradbury". This is an obvious reference to Ray Bradbury. I am going to watch it again even more closely at a later date, and see what else I can discover. Mushrom 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rating

What would you rate this article, I'd say B-class or higher. -- Cbrown1023 00:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rayleigh similar to Kayleigh?

The name Kayleigh somewhat similar to "Rayleigh number" that appears in here Lorenz_attractor. What do you think is it a coinsidence? The parameter used to change evolution of system?

Trivia

I noticed something reading through this... the main character's name is Evan Treborn. This is likely referencing that he is the "third born", or third of his kind, referencing to the previous two stillbirths his mother had.

well idk about that but i DO know that his original name in the film was "Chris" which makes it "Chris Treborn," or "Christ Reborn." But i think the filmmakers thought it would be too obvious and there'd be some conflict or something so they changed it to evan

75.4.177.78 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Snak Pak

Evan Treborn = Event Reborn? 217.205.110.55 18:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

according to IMDB, the name was changed from Chris Treborn which is a refernece to Christ Reborn, to Evan Treborn, which is a play on Event Reborn, as said above. I think it was just a case of Event Reborn being more fitting to the plot, rather than any conflict surrounding using a pun of Christ Reborn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemonkey15 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Alleged temporal inconsistencies section

These were removed, can be seen at [2].

This entire section apeears to be comprised of arguments, concepts, statements, or theories that are unpublished, original research. Either reputable sournces need to be citated here, or this section will need to be rev'ed. ---Jackel 17:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As indicated, I've removed this section. For posterity's sake, here it is.

• By producing stigmata when traveling back to his grade school years and impaling his hands in order to convince his cellmate, Carlos, that "Jesus is in my dreams", Evan has created an entirely new timeline. In this timeline, he would have arrived in prison with the scars and Evan would have been unable to demonstrate to Carlos that the scars were not there beforehand. Carlos could therefore not logically have been surprised by the scars' appearance. This would suggest that Evan's ability to travel back in time and still maintain physical attributes of prior timelines (for example, the fact that his memories build up rather than being recreated) allow him to affect other people, like Carlos and his memories.
• Some of Evan's trips do not alter the timeline but instead seem to have already been incorporated into his original life in a predestination paradox. For example, in his second blackout, his traveling back and looking for a weapon, which is caught out of context by his mother when she sees him suddenly holding a knife in the kitchen, does not alter the timeline because his original timeline already has this change in it. Another example can be seen in his fourth blackout when he visits his dad in the psychiatric institution. His dad warns him that his traveling back is recklessly dangerous because of the changes it could incur; however, this change was also already in Evan's original timeline. However, a possible argument for why this is not a paradox is that these events might have happened without Evan travelling back in time. Specifically, Evan might have originally gone for the knife for a reason other than to destroy the blockbuster, but we do not know the specific reason because he blacked it out. Similarly, there is no indication that Evan's father originally tried to choke him because of what he told him later in the movie; he might have recognized Evan's powers without listening to Evan's claims that he would make everything right again.

I don't know about all that, but the fact that he blacked it out in the 1st place, in a way, makes the paradox perfectly viable for him to have continued on, then go back and make it happen anyway. If he remembered taking the knife, then it would be different, and what about the part where He drew the Picture that he didn't remember drawing because of the blackout. He remembered that he was supposed to draw it, so he went back and ended up drawing it anyways.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.177.78 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

• After Evan watches the home video and changes his timeline, he never would have begun to write his journals in the first place. Indeed, the blackouts that happened throughout the movie only happened somewhere with or involving Kayleigh and Tommy, and they were no longer part of his life in the final timeline. This calls into question what were the journals he burned at the end. However, it might be that he still experienced the blackouts even without his relationships with Kayleigh and Tommy, since it was never conclusively determined that there is such a causal relationship. It might instead be that the blackouts are caused by any traumatic experience, which could have existed with or without Kayleigh and Tommy; for example, the blackout during Evan's visit with his father had nothing to do with Kayleigh and Tommy. The journals might have therefore contained very different entries, but we do not know what they are.
• In his first revisit to the dynamite incident the cigarette burn appears to have absolutely no effect on the timeline contrary to the butterfly effect theory. However, we do not know that nothing changed; we only know that the cigarette burn did not change anything directly related to the plot. The burn is a relatively minor incident, and therefore any changes to the timeline might be similarly minor.
• While not conclusive in its fault, it is difficult to believe, based on the butterfly effect theory, that Evan's action in his flashback to school when he impales his hands in the classroom would not have had sufficient effect on the timeline to allow him to arrive back in prison, still talking with Carlos. Further, it could be argued that all of Evan's changes to the timeline throughout the film would have caused much greater change to his surroundings, as opposed to being primarily constrained to those that he directly affected. Of course, the movie only focuses directly on Evan, and therefore we know little about the degree to which his surroundings changed. Even so, the theory does not predict any specific changes, and therefore arguing that changes should have been more or less significant is merely hypothetical.
• ^ the improbability of him still ending up in jail aside, none of the above arguments have accounted for the this:

-Kayleigh didn't perceive Evan's arms suddenly turning into prosthetics.

-Carlos does perceive Evan's hands suddenly bearing puncture scars.

It's an inconsistency. If Evan changes the timeline so that his hands were impaled as a child, he would have grown up that way from the point of view of the people in that timeline. A gx7 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2