Talk:Predestination (film)

Australia: Melbourne / Cinema Low‑importance

	Australia portal Predestination (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Film: Australian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoiler Alert: Plot Error (Bartender's offer to John)[edit]

The Bartender's pretext to persuade John to go back in time was not to catch/stop the Fizzle Bomber, it was to kill Jane's boyfriend who had left her. In a way I suppose it's correct as Jane, John the Bartender and The Fizzle Bomber are all the same person, but in the specific context of that scene the description in the Plot section on the main article is incorrect. 90.212.254.154 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. In the mean time the plot was shortened, and this plot detail removed. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put the error back. I corrected it. No doubt my corrections will be reverted by someone who hasn't seen the film. 202.81.249.118 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my recent revisions, this correction remains. Thanks for reverting it originally. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot graphic[edit]

This would be a great addition to the article, a lot more compact than the current summary, but no doubt violates some tedious bureaucratic rule. Anyway, see http://i.imgur.com/QjYYbsL.jpg Seems to have originally been uploaded to Reddit. 202.81.249.118 (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be an excellent substitute for such a convoluted plot. However, I think it is more important to maintain the text-based format of Wikipedia. Can we upload it to Commons so that we can include it in the article? Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overly complicated plot section[edit]

I have been revising the Plot section over the last few days to try and make it as succinct as possible. While Wikipedia copyeditors do not need to worry about spoiler issues, I don't think it helps to describe the plot in too much detail—especially in regard to a narrative that is so complicated to describe in the written word. I think a collaborative effort can lead to an ideal outcome in this instance, so I hope that other copyeditors continue to contribute. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we had before wasn't at all bad, and now even better. I don't think it would be a good idea to reduce the plot section further. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section[edit]

The plot section is pretty much crap. It's not really about plot but an essay full of OR and speculation about the plot's themes as you would find on a private web page or a blog, perhaps even an official site by the studio. Either the guy who's written the plot section never learnt how to simply and properly re-tell or summarize a plot in school, or it was written by a person actually working for the studio (it could even be the director or screenwriter). In any case, what's currently at the plot section is not the plot, and it's full of OR and speculation. What little can be salvaged from it should be moved to an own Themes section. So I'm sorry to say John, you gotta go back and do it again! ;) Just do it right this time. --87.169.94.205 (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is directly plagiarized from another article, which can be found at: http://www.astronomytrek.com/predestination-2014-explained/. Although the article is not dated, comments on the article are dated from December 2014, three months prior to the Wikipedia edit. I'm removing this section to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. If it turns out that the original author also copied it here, it can easily be restored. (also it's pretty much crap as a plot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.63.113 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the resemblance between the synopsis on Astronomy Trek and the former plot section. Are you saying that entire sentences were lifted out? If so, can you please give examples? If only the general ideas were the same, that wouldn't be a surprise since both authors studied the same film. 108.51.125.32 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Timeline[edit]

I think two versions of the timeline should be done:- (1) A version that is continous from the first person's perspective. (call it the local time version) (2) A version that is continous from the Earth's perspective. (call it the earth time version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.136.208 (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Hawke's, not Snook's, the "lead role"?[edit]

The article seems to follow the film companies' story about who the main character is. Obviously, it is the Sarah Snook character that is the main character, and that is the lead role. Or maybe there are two lead roles. Why doesn't the article say so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.127.183 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, they are the same role!.. its the same character, played by two different actors, which can interact with itself because of time travel. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logic[edit]

Better don't search for „Logic“ in this Film … the child has itself both as mother (pre-OP) as well as father (post-OP), thus the whole life story of the (only) main actor is an unsolvable paradox! Personally there's something that bugs me even more: How can you shoot seven times with a six-shot revolver? That's no paradox, it's simply impossible! :-P 80.141.195.158 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]