![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello,
first of all, I want to say that I come from Germany and my English is not that good. Fell free to correct my mystakes :-)
While watching the film the second time I discovered a sentence in the 5th Timeline that gives me reason to belive, that the whole interpretation of "Timetraveling" is wrong. As the Blackouts (which are defined by "not remembering what happend") are the "changingpoints" in Evans life, it means that, whenever he wakes up in a new timeline, it is the first time that he knows within this timeline that he changed his life. An example: He wakes up in the second timeline in Kayleighs bed. This timeline is based on the first change that he made in his past. Because this changed was made in a blackout (and he can't remember what happend), the 13 to 20 year old Evan in this second timeline doesen't know that it is based on the change during the blackout. What I want to say is, that only the 20 year old Evan knows about the timetravelling.
In the fifth timeline, when he talks to the doctor and ask for his journals, the doctor responses: "It hurts me to go through this again. There are no journals. There never were. It is part of the phantasyworld your mind created to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh Miller. Think Evan, THINK. You've created a disease that does not exist. Alternate universes with Colleges, prisons and paraplegia" But the doctor can't know anything about these parallel universes, because even Evan didn't know anything about it until he wakes up in this timeline when he is 20. The conclusion would be, that the doctor is right and all the parallel timlines are just made up to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh.
I look forward on comments to my interpretation. Greetings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.59.98.102 ( talk) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
OR
Hi.
I think the two theories above are amongst the most sensible I've heard, and would like to offer another, which is partially an extension on the first. I have seen the film a few times, and my friend always likes to tell me the message it gives out is that you are in control of your life, and you can alter the future - its not set. However, it strikes me that in each 'timeline', Evan still has all the memories of the others - so, when he makes the first change, and wakes up at college, in bed with Kayleigh, he still has the memories of the other life he had been living, and he is in fact still the same person - which is made obvious when Kayleigh says to him (in timeline 2) that there is 'something different' - the way he talks, walks, his mannerisms, everything is different. He is still the same person. Each time he changes the path he is on, or 'goes back in time', he isn't really, because if those changes had genuinely taken place, and that was the path he was living, all memories of his other lives would have vanished. This would make it, instead of five or six parallel universes, one straight line, each path joining up to the next, only moving forward in time, and not back, or into different universes.
Also, the fact that he has no 'life line' and should in fact not be alive reminds me of 'Donnie Darko' - the opening of parallel universes, where the only way to right it was the death of himself. I think that 'The Butterfly Effect' has the same theme - that Evan was never supposed to have been born, and that the only way to correct is to kill himself, which is what he does.
Will be intersted to see what people say :) -- Kiwi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.232.149 ( talk) 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone added this in the continuity section:
"In one timeline, Evan goes to Kayleigh's father's house. He holds her father against the house, and reminds him that they had a chat when he was only seven. Since Evan found out where she lived, it is assumed that her father remembered, and told him in fear. However, in that same timeline, Kayliegh mentions that they had had sex in front of her father's video camera."
The person interpreted this WRONG. Kayleigh and Evan did NOT have sex in front of the video camera. All Kayleigh said was "Go back to when I was seven, and **** me in front of my Dad's video camera, and straighten me out a bit." She was just saying that to hurt him and offend him by telling him to go do that. It NEVER happened. Evan changed that time line when he was a teenager, so when they were kids and in the basement it had STILL been altered by Evan the first time he changed things, so nothing happened in the basement. Bottom line, they DIDN'T have sex. Kayleigh was just saying that to hurt Evan. Dark Spidey 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Basically Evan forced the father to back away. Evan was pretty wicked o that scene, haha!-- 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's important that Evan is technically a murderer walking free: -first, he kills Tommy in somewhat self-defense, somewhat cold-blood. -he also kills the two men in prison. -not to mention the accidental murder of Kaleigh with the filibuster.
Just because the timeline's changed doesn't mean he himself didn't choose to kill Tommy; it just means the murder didn't stick.
Evan never murdered anyone. At best killing Tommy was self-defense. At worst it was
voluntary manslaughter, not murder. The 2 men in prison were just assaulted, not killed. Kaleigh's death was not murder because it was not an intentional act, it was an accident. And you can't murder people who never existed in the first place.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Evan shouldn't have been sent to prison for killing Tommy because it should have been self defense. Consider the fact it was Tommy was the one with the bat Evan was lucky to even get it away from him without getting killed himself. I believe that this "Perfect timeline" wasn't so perfect and Kaleigh didn't back up Evan's story to the cops. Consider the fact she complains about the special evening Evan prepared for her. Also when Evan is in prision his mom suggested that Kaleigh wasn't doing well. Kaleigh isn't worth the trouble Evan went for her —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.244.83.203 (
talk)
06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
One can't say whether the 2 prisoners died, the film didn't show if the 2 prisoners died. It was rather a bad stabbing. I don't think Evan meant to kill them though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the poster included on the article and it says "Date Demi Moore...Get Your Own Movie" ... a little photoshop there, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamael ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
One Cannot say Evan didn't kill the 2 prisoners, the film didn't show if the prisoners died. The stabbing was pretty bad, so you can't say it was just an "assult". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
For the Comparisons section:
The scene in which Evan attempts to reveal his powers and problems to the addict version of Kayleigh in the cafe is reminiscent of a similar scene in groundhog day. Bill Murray's character tells Andie MacDowell's what is happening to him, how he is reliving the same day over and over, and then goes on to prove it by telling her things about herself he could not possibly know unless this strange event was happening. This is similar to how Evan is reliving the same few memories of his life over and over again, seeing how his actions effect what happens (just as Murray's character does in his day) and then proves it to Kayleigh in exactly the same manner as Murray.
Umm, I know I'm not particularily talented at writing wiki-worthy-words but if someone could write a better version of what I said I feel it's worthy of inclusion.
Is it just me or did the whole trivia section just dissapear?
Excuse me, After he was 7 It said "7 years after" This would of made him 14, NOT 13! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Fighter ( talk • contribs) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Image:The Butterfly Effect - Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
User:DJH47 keeps removing the cultural references section, apparently in response to a discussion we had on the Talk:Rock Lobster page. So far, he's deleted cultural references on a number of pages, as seen from his edit history. I've tried to get him to discuss his feelings on talk pages before deleting entire sections of content, but so far he hasn't, so I'm starting this section here to hopefully facilitate the discussion.
I feel the cultural reference sections are valid and noteworthy. When I write in my edit summaries that they are supported by consensus, I'm referring to the fact that almost every article on a book/flm/tv show/song has a section on wikipedia mentioning some of the noteworthy references both contained in the work, and also referring back to the work. That's easy to see, simply by searching.
References to a work in other media help to establish notability. Maybe this isn't necessary for huge articles or subjects like Star Wars, but for other, middle-of-the-road articles, it helps to indicate that a work is notable and has entered the mainstream.
Again, I would assert that the "cultural references" sections of wikipedia articles have been attained by popular consensus from the large number of article that have the section. I would ask that they not all be unilaterally deleted without discussion. Snowfire51 ( talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Amedo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, the plot summary is only 152 words. 'Sometimes a more complex plot may call for a longer summary.' [ Summaries] Back to the Future 2's plot summary is currently 842 words. Plots with multiple timelines are inherently complicated. While the subheadings and age summaries would need to go, the timeline summaries should be distilled to one sentence each and information which is repeated elsewhere in the summary should be removed. You have yet to engage in discussion on this talk page for such a major edit and evidently a controversial one. 121.44.108.62 ( talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the extended plot summary very helpful and informational. Zeke72791 ( talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering, where is it stated that the present timeline takes place in 2002? It was mostly (if not entirely) filmed in 2003. I'm not arguing that it doesn't, i just wondered where it oficially says the main story is 2002 and not 2003. What was so important about 2002? I haven't watched the movie in awhile, that's why i asked. Terminator14 ( talk) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new poster image from IMDB with fair use rationale in mind since I noticed there had been some issues in the past with keeping up the fair use rationale. Enjoy. Yaminator ( talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary of the movie reads like far too conversationally and needs some heavy rewriting. -- TRTX T / C 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
How far this article has come... 121.44.40.20 ( talk) 09:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at rewriting the plot summary. I think I've struck a balance between the desire to keep the page uncluttered and the desire to fairly depict the plot of the film. I hope this works for all sides. Stile4aly ( talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What with it being a funny ending, I've actually explained the Noon Day Stalker ending. It probably could be written a bit better but it'll do for now until someone feels like tweaking it. 86.148.125.81 ( talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Oscy
I do not understand why you would remove these things when you've not watched the DVD and/or scenes yourself! I was explaining the Stalker ending further as it was quite inadequately explained. As for your problem with the links, I explained there is currently no uploaded video I've found of the NDS scene but references to its existence. It was asked that I provided these links so I did. 86.176.118.137 ( talk) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Some say at the end the film Evan notices her and lets her go, but i think she knew who he was already, but they failed to make contact, maybe because they were afraid to talk to each other. Does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I was going to mention something but I see it has already been 'discussed' while being edited in, then out, then in, then taken out etc. etc. and you guys have been totally abusive yet never even seen the DVD. WTF?
Well if it means anything come from a lowly regular internet user such as myself who dared to actual watch the thing, the guy isn't a troll and anyone who's watched the DVD will know he's talking perfect sense.
What a bunch of ignorant hypocrite trolls. 109.155.37.36 ( talk) 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello,
first of all, I want to say that I come from Germany and my English is not that good. Fell free to correct my mystakes :-)
While watching the film the second time I discovered a sentence in the 5th Timeline that gives me reason to belive, that the whole interpretation of "Timetraveling" is wrong. As the Blackouts (which are defined by "not remembering what happend") are the "changingpoints" in Evans life, it means that, whenever he wakes up in a new timeline, it is the first time that he knows within this timeline that he changed his life. An example: He wakes up in the second timeline in Kayleighs bed. This timeline is based on the first change that he made in his past. Because this changed was made in a blackout (and he can't remember what happend), the 13 to 20 year old Evan in this second timeline doesen't know that it is based on the change during the blackout. What I want to say is, that only the 20 year old Evan knows about the timetravelling.
In the fifth timeline, when he talks to the doctor and ask for his journals, the doctor responses: "It hurts me to go through this again. There are no journals. There never were. It is part of the phantasyworld your mind created to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh Miller. Think Evan, THINK. You've created a disease that does not exist. Alternate universes with Colleges, prisons and paraplegia" But the doctor can't know anything about these parallel universes, because even Evan didn't know anything about it until he wakes up in this timeline when he is 20. The conclusion would be, that the doctor is right and all the parallel timlines are just made up to cope with the guild of killing Kayleigh.
I look forward on comments to my interpretation. Greetings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.59.98.102 ( talk) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
OR
Hi.
I think the two theories above are amongst the most sensible I've heard, and would like to offer another, which is partially an extension on the first. I have seen the film a few times, and my friend always likes to tell me the message it gives out is that you are in control of your life, and you can alter the future - its not set. However, it strikes me that in each 'timeline', Evan still has all the memories of the others - so, when he makes the first change, and wakes up at college, in bed with Kayleigh, he still has the memories of the other life he had been living, and he is in fact still the same person - which is made obvious when Kayleigh says to him (in timeline 2) that there is 'something different' - the way he talks, walks, his mannerisms, everything is different. He is still the same person. Each time he changes the path he is on, or 'goes back in time', he isn't really, because if those changes had genuinely taken place, and that was the path he was living, all memories of his other lives would have vanished. This would make it, instead of five or six parallel universes, one straight line, each path joining up to the next, only moving forward in time, and not back, or into different universes.
Also, the fact that he has no 'life line' and should in fact not be alive reminds me of 'Donnie Darko' - the opening of parallel universes, where the only way to right it was the death of himself. I think that 'The Butterfly Effect' has the same theme - that Evan was never supposed to have been born, and that the only way to correct is to kill himself, which is what he does.
Will be intersted to see what people say :) -- Kiwi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.232.149 ( talk) 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone added this in the continuity section:
"In one timeline, Evan goes to Kayleigh's father's house. He holds her father against the house, and reminds him that they had a chat when he was only seven. Since Evan found out where she lived, it is assumed that her father remembered, and told him in fear. However, in that same timeline, Kayliegh mentions that they had had sex in front of her father's video camera."
The person interpreted this WRONG. Kayleigh and Evan did NOT have sex in front of the video camera. All Kayleigh said was "Go back to when I was seven, and **** me in front of my Dad's video camera, and straighten me out a bit." She was just saying that to hurt him and offend him by telling him to go do that. It NEVER happened. Evan changed that time line when he was a teenager, so when they were kids and in the basement it had STILL been altered by Evan the first time he changed things, so nothing happened in the basement. Bottom line, they DIDN'T have sex. Kayleigh was just saying that to hurt Evan. Dark Spidey 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Basically Evan forced the father to back away. Evan was pretty wicked o that scene, haha!-- 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's important that Evan is technically a murderer walking free: -first, he kills Tommy in somewhat self-defense, somewhat cold-blood. -he also kills the two men in prison. -not to mention the accidental murder of Kaleigh with the filibuster.
Just because the timeline's changed doesn't mean he himself didn't choose to kill Tommy; it just means the murder didn't stick.
Evan never murdered anyone. At best killing Tommy was self-defense. At worst it was
voluntary manslaughter, not murder. The 2 men in prison were just assaulted, not killed. Kaleigh's death was not murder because it was not an intentional act, it was an accident. And you can't murder people who never existed in the first place.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Evan shouldn't have been sent to prison for killing Tommy because it should have been self defense. Consider the fact it was Tommy was the one with the bat Evan was lucky to even get it away from him without getting killed himself. I believe that this "Perfect timeline" wasn't so perfect and Kaleigh didn't back up Evan's story to the cops. Consider the fact she complains about the special evening Evan prepared for her. Also when Evan is in prision his mom suggested that Kaleigh wasn't doing well. Kaleigh isn't worth the trouble Evan went for her —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.244.83.203 (
talk)
06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
One can't say whether the 2 prisoners died, the film didn't show if the 2 prisoners died. It was rather a bad stabbing. I don't think Evan meant to kill them though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the poster included on the article and it says "Date Demi Moore...Get Your Own Movie" ... a little photoshop there, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamael ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
One Cannot say Evan didn't kill the 2 prisoners, the film didn't show if the prisoners died. The stabbing was pretty bad, so you can't say it was just an "assult". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
For the Comparisons section:
The scene in which Evan attempts to reveal his powers and problems to the addict version of Kayleigh in the cafe is reminiscent of a similar scene in groundhog day. Bill Murray's character tells Andie MacDowell's what is happening to him, how he is reliving the same day over and over, and then goes on to prove it by telling her things about herself he could not possibly know unless this strange event was happening. This is similar to how Evan is reliving the same few memories of his life over and over again, seeing how his actions effect what happens (just as Murray's character does in his day) and then proves it to Kayleigh in exactly the same manner as Murray.
Umm, I know I'm not particularily talented at writing wiki-worthy-words but if someone could write a better version of what I said I feel it's worthy of inclusion.
Is it just me or did the whole trivia section just dissapear?
Excuse me, After he was 7 It said "7 years after" This would of made him 14, NOT 13! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Fighter ( talk • contribs) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Image:The Butterfly Effect - Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
User:DJH47 keeps removing the cultural references section, apparently in response to a discussion we had on the Talk:Rock Lobster page. So far, he's deleted cultural references on a number of pages, as seen from his edit history. I've tried to get him to discuss his feelings on talk pages before deleting entire sections of content, but so far he hasn't, so I'm starting this section here to hopefully facilitate the discussion.
I feel the cultural reference sections are valid and noteworthy. When I write in my edit summaries that they are supported by consensus, I'm referring to the fact that almost every article on a book/flm/tv show/song has a section on wikipedia mentioning some of the noteworthy references both contained in the work, and also referring back to the work. That's easy to see, simply by searching.
References to a work in other media help to establish notability. Maybe this isn't necessary for huge articles or subjects like Star Wars, but for other, middle-of-the-road articles, it helps to indicate that a work is notable and has entered the mainstream.
Again, I would assert that the "cultural references" sections of wikipedia articles have been attained by popular consensus from the large number of article that have the section. I would ask that they not all be unilaterally deleted without discussion. Snowfire51 ( talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Amedo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, the plot summary is only 152 words. 'Sometimes a more complex plot may call for a longer summary.' [ Summaries] Back to the Future 2's plot summary is currently 842 words. Plots with multiple timelines are inherently complicated. While the subheadings and age summaries would need to go, the timeline summaries should be distilled to one sentence each and information which is repeated elsewhere in the summary should be removed. You have yet to engage in discussion on this talk page for such a major edit and evidently a controversial one. 121.44.108.62 ( talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the extended plot summary very helpful and informational. Zeke72791 ( talk) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering, where is it stated that the present timeline takes place in 2002? It was mostly (if not entirely) filmed in 2003. I'm not arguing that it doesn't, i just wondered where it oficially says the main story is 2002 and not 2003. What was so important about 2002? I haven't watched the movie in awhile, that's why i asked. Terminator14 ( talk) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new poster image from IMDB with fair use rationale in mind since I noticed there had been some issues in the past with keeping up the fair use rationale. Enjoy. Yaminator ( talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary of the movie reads like far too conversationally and needs some heavy rewriting. -- TRTX T / C 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
How far this article has come... 121.44.40.20 ( talk) 09:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at rewriting the plot summary. I think I've struck a balance between the desire to keep the page uncluttered and the desire to fairly depict the plot of the film. I hope this works for all sides. Stile4aly ( talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What with it being a funny ending, I've actually explained the Noon Day Stalker ending. It probably could be written a bit better but it'll do for now until someone feels like tweaking it. 86.148.125.81 ( talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Oscy
I do not understand why you would remove these things when you've not watched the DVD and/or scenes yourself! I was explaining the Stalker ending further as it was quite inadequately explained. As for your problem with the links, I explained there is currently no uploaded video I've found of the NDS scene but references to its existence. It was asked that I provided these links so I did. 86.176.118.137 ( talk) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Some say at the end the film Evan notices her and lets her go, but i think she knew who he was already, but they failed to make contact, maybe because they were afraid to talk to each other. Does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.217.238 ( talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I was going to mention something but I see it has already been 'discussed' while being edited in, then out, then in, then taken out etc. etc. and you guys have been totally abusive yet never even seen the DVD. WTF?
Well if it means anything come from a lowly regular internet user such as myself who dared to actual watch the thing, the guy isn't a troll and anyone who's watched the DVD will know he's talking perfect sense.
What a bunch of ignorant hypocrite trolls. 109.155.37.36 ( talk) 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |