Cracked: 5 Movie Fan Theories That Make More Sense Than the Movie

[Alidar Jarok]

Funny you should mention the Narnia series... you know, the one that switches main characters several times, and is the more interesting for it...

And if the books were called "Peter Pevensie and the Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe," "Peter Pevensie and Prince Caspian," "Peter Pevensie and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader," "Peter Pevensie and the Silver Chair," "Peter Pevensie, the Horse and His Boy," "Peter Pevensie and the Magician's Nephew," and "Peter Pevensie and the Last Battle," your comment might make sense. Or if the Harry Potter series was called "Hogwarts" you'd have a point. But you completely missed mine.

 

[J.T.B.]

When Vivien Leigh was killed part-way through Psycho, I doubt that audiences were surprised and yet bored.

That would have been very surprising indeed since it was Janet Leigh in the movie !

--Justin

 

[Christopher]

^"As God is my witness, I'll never take a shower again!"

 

[Thestral]

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I remember when the "Obi-Wan is a clone" theory started to crop up pre-Episode II, in fact I think it might have been around for longer than that.

It was. I remember first reading it in an issue of Starlog in the early 90s (and it may have been a back issue from the late 80s, actually... I think it was some sort of Star Wars Anniversary issue).

 

[Mistral]

It's been yonks since I saw the matrix films but although they were filmed together - it always seemed to me that many of the lines and clues in the second film were left over from a earlier draft they seemed to be suggesting it is all just a simulation and were never picked up up in the third (even though they were filmed together) - lines such as the fact that it's causally mentioned this would be the sixth time that Zion was destroyed. At the very least (and maybe I'm misrembering this) - didn't it seem like they were leading upto the fact that Harmann was a program?

Harm Man? Who's that?

 

[Servo]

It's been yonks since I saw the matrix films but although they were filmed together - it always seemed to me that many of the lines and clues in the second film were left over from a earlier draft they seemed to be suggesting it is all just a simulation and were never picked up up in the third (even though they were filmed together) - lines such as the fact that it's causally mentioned this would be the sixth time that Zion was destroyed. At the very least (and maybe I'm misrembering this) - didn't it seem like they were leading upto the fact that Harmann was a program?

Harm Man? Who's that?

Erm, are you high? How have you got Harm Man from Harmann? He's talking about Councillor Harmann - Anthony Zerbe's character.

 

[Mistral]

It's been yonks since I saw the matrix films but although they were filmed together - it always seemed to me that many of the lines and clues in the second film were left over from a earlier draft they seemed to be suggesting it is all just a simulation and were never picked up up in the third (even though they were filmed together) - lines such as the fact that it's causally mentioned this would be the sixth time that Zion was destroyed. At the very least (and maybe I'm misrembering this) - didn't it seem like they were leading upto the fact that Harmann was a program?

Harm Man? Who's that?

Erm, are you high? How have you got Harm Man from Harmann? He's talking about Councillor Harmann - Anthony Zerbe's character.

Yes, I'm high-that must be it. I was merely noting the...interesting choice of names.

 

[Klaus]

Luke: "You fought in the Clone Wars?"
Ben: "I was the Clone Wars, sonny."

 

[Servo]

Yes, I'm high-that must be it. I was merely noting the...interesting choice of names.

How is that interesting? Maybe if Harmann was a bad guy I could kinda see what you were trying to do, but as it stands your post makes no sense at all.

 

[flemm]

[Rowling totally let the cat out of the bag by showing Snape taking the Unbreakable Whatsit. By bother showing that scene if it wouldn't later bite him in the arse? No, it was quite clear, imho.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. I mean, yes, it was easy to guess that there would be an additional twist regarding Snape, but off the top of my head I don't see how the unbreakable vow scene actually reveals much one way or the other. Could you elaborate, out of curiosity?

 

[Silvercrest]

He's thinking in meta-plot terms, aka "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" plotting. If Snape was just a villain, Rowling would have had no reason to have him take the Unbreakable Vow, or do anything else relating to his ambiguous status. The fact that he did so pretty much shouts out that there's more going on.

Like Gaith says, why else bother showing it?

 

[Christopher]

I would presume the point was to "prove" to readers that Snape, whose allegiance had been ambiguous in the previous books, was definitely on the side of the Death Eaters. It was meant to remove the existing doubts as to his evilness, not to create more doubt.

 

[Silvercrest]

I suppose in terms of straightforward plotting, it could be read that way -- but by that point, even the other characters were doubting how evil he was. If he had taken the vow, settled the question of his evilness, and gone on to be a straightforward villain, it would have been anticlimactic.

 

[stj]

Isn't the real point about Snape that fact that Harry doesn't understand Snape was in love with Lily? Or, earlier, that he didn't realize his father was not born to be a good guy and was pretty rotten deep down until reformed by Lily? We readers knew since Snape saved Harry from Quirrell in book one that he was actually a good guy.

As to the Matrix theory, Neo is not a human being, so being able to hack the machines by wifi shouldn't have been an unacceptable surprise. Being a program is why he could hack the Matrix in the first place. He got caught hacking the flying squids, his program was exiled and ended up in the Trainmaster's portal to the only place for exiled programs to go to. It wasn't stated (but didn't need to be) that all the Neos were clones with the same program inserted. The difference came from the different people involved, i.e., Morpheus and Trinity.

Zion and Neo are part of the machines control system. By definition, the people in Zion are those who cannot even unconsciously accept the Matrix. When the machines worry about the Zion people getting out of hand, they send in the One to reboot the cycle. How is Zion being a simulation more significant than being a part of the control system, merely a relief valve instead of a real threat? Except that being satisfied with the reality of Zion but unable to accept the reality of the Matrix suggests the Zion people have something seriously wrong with their brains, that is.

 

[Sindatur]

[Rowling totally let the cat out of the bag by showing Snape taking the Unbreakable Whatsit. By bother showing that scene if it wouldn't later bite him in the arse? No, it was quite clear, imho.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. I mean, yes, it was easy to guess that there would be an additional twist regarding Snape, but off the top of my head I don't see how the unbreakable vow scene actually reveals much one way or the other. Could you elaborate, out of curiosity?

Yea, I was deep in the heart of Mugglenet at the time of release of HBP, and discussed it on several other boards as well, and those of us who weren't sold on Snape being a betrayer were amongst the minority and ridiculed for not seeing the "Obvious" in the Tower Scene. Only a small percentage didn't believe Snape was 100% on Dark Lord's side.

 

[Sindatur]

He's thinking in meta-plot terms, aka "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" plotting. If Snape was just a villain, Rowling would have had no reason to have him take the Unbreakable Vow, or do anything else relating to his ambiguous status. The fact that he did so pretty much shouts out that there's more going on.

Like Gaith says, why else bother showing it?

It was still ambiguous at the end of the book, when he killed Dumbledore, it wasn't until the end of Deathly Hallows, that we knew it was under Dumbledore's orders.

 

[flemm]

Indeed, there was hardly widespread agreement among readers prior to the seventh book's release. When I say that I thought it was easy to guess there was going to be an additional twist, it is mostly for meta-story reasons, as suggested by someone else above.

That said, I don't think there were any dead giveaways in the earlier books, so I was curious to know if Gaith was referring to any specific issue with the scene.

Incidentally, I don't think either of the examples cited above actually give anything away. Snape explains the Quirrel incident to Voldemort, and the explanation is sound. Regarding the end of OotP, Snape's priority as a double agent would be to retain Dumbledore's trust, so, having been warned by Harry, I could see him deciding that not passing the message along would be too great a risk (even if he were allied with Voldemort). While pretending to be a member of the Order, he would be required to walk that type of line on a regular basis. It's the kind of detail that could be spun convincingly either way.

 

[Silvercrest]

Yea, I was deep in the heart of Mugglenet at the time of release of HBP, and discussed it on several other boards as well, and those of us who weren't sold on Snape being a betrayer were amongst the minority and ridiculed for not seeing the "Obvious" in the Tower Scene. Only a small percentage didn't believe Snape was 100% on Dark Lord's side.

It was obvious, all right-- too obvious, as far as I was concerned. Now, that could just mean Rowling plots her stories with all the subtlety of a brick, but I was willing to believe something else was going on.

Regarding the end of OotP, Snape's priority as a double agent would be to retain Dumbledore's trust, so, having been warned by Harry, I could see him deciding that not passing the message along would be too great a risk (even if he were allied with Voldemort). While pretending to be a member of the Order, he would be required to walk that type of line on a regular basis.

True! But in this case it was completely swept under the rug and never mentioned by either side. Even though Snape had to give excuses for all his other line-walking, strangely, that one never came up. Again, I figured either Rowling completely forgot that plot point (and that's very possible), or she was dropping a hint to the readers as to whose side Snape was really on.

 

[Sindatur]

Plus when Snape took the Unbreakable Vow, there was still about 1500 pages left of the Series (About 600 in HBP, and a whole 'nother book, that many were expecting to be a monster sized book, immediately after reading HBP, before anything was known of Book 7) anyone who wasn't expecting more twists for Snape even without that scene must not have been paying attention, IMHO