Talk:Twelve Monkeys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article	This article is a Article.

	Twelve Monkeys is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Spoilers in general 2 Insanity, Reality & Schizophrenia 3 Conspiracy? 4 Not a bioterrorist? 5 Woman on the Plane 6 Rename this to "12 monkeys" 7 Questions about Ricky Newman 8 Similarities to Fight Club 9 Trivia 10 Criticism of Institutional Psychiatry 11 Nonlinear timeline films 12 Copyvio 13 Woman on the plane - what she says... 14 Themes : Christ allegory 15 Error in Plot Synopsis - corrected - discussion

[edit] Spoilers in general

my take was that the 12 monkeys were the 12 central characters to the film; Madeline, Bruce, Brad, then the insurance lady, the spooky scientist guy with the long blonde hair who worked with Brad's dad, and whoever else. I only saw it once. But then the last line of the artible saying that it was a different person responbile altogether would be wrong, because that guy could be one of the 12 Monkeys.

just a thought, but I'm nuts too. CMB

I guess this is as good a place as any to bring this up: should movie articles in Wikipedia contain spoilers? The last paragraph of the article gives away a very important twist of the plot. Do we want to do this for the sake of being complete, or do we want to leave things vague so that the movie isn't ruined for people who haven't seen it? -- STG

I think it's better not to give too much away, at least not without a very clear warning that a spoiler follows. --Koyaanis Qatsi

I disagree. An encyclopedia article should relate all of the important information about a movie. Perhaps a spoiler warning would be helpful, but encyclopedic presentation of knowledge should take precedence over entertainment issues. -MRC

People generally read about math, physics, and chemistry to learn their principles. People generally read about movies to decide whether to see them; finding out how the movie ends before watching the movie makes the it less enjoyable. So I think that brief plot synopses should not contain unlabelled spoilers. Yet some other people read about movies to learn how they're made--the typical behind-the-scenes stuff on DVDs showing FX tricks, director's commentary, various drafts of screenplays, discussions of camera movement, the director's discussions of different conflicts, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with this kind of discussion on wikipedia; I find it useful for people who have seen the movie already & developed a fascination with it, but I do think that it should still be flagged as containing spoilers to warn off people who haven't yet seen it and wish to. --KQ

I had a big wrangle with myself when doing it. It occurred to me that the balanced point of view is that if one is looking in an encyclopedia for something, one is trying to find something out, which is completely different from reading a movie review, where you're trying to whether a movie is worth seeing or not. sjc

This is an encyclopedia, not a recommendation web site. I think that should but us close to literary criticism (well, cinematic criticism in this case, but I tend to write about books). In this context one always writes about all of the book or film. If you don't want to know things about something, then don't real a scholarly article about it. --Pinkunicorn

I'm not saying "don't write about it," I'm just saying to put a warning if it contains spoilers. Most people are not used to reading about movie plots in encyclopedias, with all that that entails, you know. --KQ

I agree with Pinkunicorn. Maybe someone should write an article, Wikipedia contains spoilers. Encylopedia entries about art, from paintings to literature to film, need to be comprehensively critical, which includes a full discussion of plot in the case of literature/film/etc. Spoiler warnings in the context of an encyclopedia would be silly. --The Cunctator

Good idea. --Pinkunicorn

Could there be a way to have the spoilers section automatically hidden, and you would simply click the "show spoilers" button to see them? That way, only those who intentionally click "show spoilers" would see the "who-done-it" part. 12.147.193.6 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insanity, Reality & Schizophrenia

I think everyone's missed the point of this film, which is what makes it so brilliant. It's really about schizophrenia, which is a disease where you can't tell the difference between what's real, and what's imaginary. You will have characters in your life, that you think you've known for years that are entirely imaginary - but convincing to you (The guy who isn't from out of space: I am mentally divergent). By watching the movie, you are asked to join the fantasy of the protagonist, and thus the audience gets a dose of schizophrenia, because they can't tell what's real and imaginary, and end up believing the illusion! What’s amazing is that there are plenty of hints through the film that James Cole is crazy, but we ignore them because we want to believe in the fantasy, and the romance between Cole and his psychiatrist (who is one of his imaginary friends).

The scientists from the future are sometimes his psychologists in the asylum, sometimes his family… Do scientists really prepare someone for a mission like in this film? Do they really act like crazy people? Think about the chair. The voice in his head in the future really is just a voice in his head. Madeline Stow's character is just another imaginary character, and many of his adventures simply happen in his head - just like in Brazil. The bullet in his leg wasn't really a bullet - after all the people from the future wouldn't have sent him to the past still injured from his last mission! I was certain of the real intent of the film when they got to the scene where they are playing 'Vertigo' in the cinema, and Niki Nova is talking about "History never changes, it's appears different because you're a different person". Also pay close attention to the bear and the shopping centre that appear both at the start of the film, and just before the climatic scene...

Don’t believe me? Watch it again. (anonymous)

Comment:

This is one interpretation of the film, and the other, which is that the events actually took place is just as valid. You draw forth arguments for the schizophrenia scenario, and there are arguments the other way around, such as the scene where Cole disappears from isolation in the mental hospital. I'm not going to argue either way here, just reminding the poster and everyone else that the film itself and film communities are not conclusive either way. Not to appeal to authority, here, but Terry Gilliam himself has stated (audio commentary on the special edition disc) that the ambiguity is intentional, much like in American Psycho. With the schizophrenia interpretation, though, some aspects that, judging from the screentime awarded them in the film, are rather important loose their meaning. As stated in the article, the film was based on a 1960's french short film, where a man sees his own death. This happens at the airport, and makes little sense other than as a diversion for the audience if Cole was simply schizophrenic. So keep your socks on :) --Teeks 15:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO the scene where the scientist gets on the plane beside the bioterrorist makes any interpretation of the movie as a portrayal of Cole's delusions untenable, not least because it happened after he was already dead. — 128.83.253.204 05:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I just have to say, that this is one of the best movies of all time--Mad Max 03:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy?

Where is this a conspiracy-theory movie? --Yooden

The whole thing is all about a search for a conspiracy. sjc

Imho only in the schizophrenia interpretation of the movie. Someone conspired, someone is looking for those people. But conspiracy theories usually imply a still happening abuse of power unknown to the general public. This is more like terrorism. --Ados 03:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the bit at the end, with the 'insurance', insured that the plague would occur in order to put the scientists in power. --User:Anonymous

[edit] Not a bioterrorist?

I see that someone changed "bioterrorist" to "man in posession of the original virus". Is there some motivation for this change? He is clearly shown deliberately releasing it and making cryptic hints to the security guard about what he was up to. — 128.83.253.204 05:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

He’s not a terrorist, as he is trying to use the virus to wipe out the human race. Instead of using the virus to terrorize a government or group. However the effect is much the same Joey jojo 12:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woman on the Plane

The woman on the plane who says, "I'm in insurance" -- isn't she one of the scientists from the future who sends Cole back? (A younger version, obviously). --kirbylg

She is that scientist, but I don't think she's younger. Didn't she travel back in time from the future to get a "fresh" culture of the virus, once it was determined where and when the virus originated? -- Crispinus211

-- The woman is clearly one of the scientists who has travelled back in time. Her choice of fake profession "insurance" [against other assassins failing?] is telling.

The mission of James Cole is very clearly stated. He is to discover the path of the original virus so that a scientist can be sent back in time to get a sample of its unmutated form. The woman on the plane is one of the scientists in the future, and has been sent back in time to get a sample. James 'died' because he died in the past, it maintains the continuity of the timestream. Also, it would seem his mission was successful: compare the list of cities the virus carrier is visiting to James' telling of the cities where the virus broke off. Apparantly one or two samples went missing.

ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW (Warning: Contains spoilers)

Are you so sure that the woman scientist on the plane, who cites her occupation as being "in insurance", was really to prevent other assasins failing? By assasins, do you mean someone sent to stop the rogue scientist carrying the virus? If so, I disagree. I would argue that what she means by being "in insurance" was that she was a contingency plan to get a sample of the unmutated form of the virus if Cole failed. I would also argue that she has/had no intention of stopping the rogue scientist releasing the virus.

This interpretation, I feel, makes more sense when you consider everything that happened in the airport. Remember Cole's friend from the future who is sent back to retrieve him at the airport (I've forgotten his name. He is the guy who tells Cole his mission is to bring Cole back to the future or kill Cole's psychiatrist girlfriend if he refuses. But instead he gives his gun to Cole, tells him he can still be a "hero" and stop the rogue scientist carrying the virus).

Anyway, remember what Cole says during all this scene with his friend from the future? Words to effect of "This is what it is all about - following orders". Cole realises that thanks to the last message he left on the answering machine, the scientists in the future now know that who is really responsible for releasing the virus... but instead of trying to stop the scientist, they send Cole's friend to bring Cole back from the past under the threat of killing his girlfriend because they are worried Cole will violate his orders & try to change history - hence the line about everything being about "following orders".

After Cole dies, we then see the scene where the rogue scientist carrying the virus takes his seat aboard the plane (NB: Remember, the rogue scientist has already deliberately released the virus back when the airport security officials asked him to open his suspicious bag and explain the contents of the biological samples. The rogue scientist, if you remember, opens one of the canisters and removes the test tube inside, opens the test tube and then asks the security guard to sniff the contents because it was odourless. Meanwhile, the scientist is looking up at the ceiling, presumably thinking about all the germs he's just released into the air).

Now when the rogue scientist takes his seat on the plane, we know that he has the unmutated virus on his hands (or in his body) because he released the virus earlier. That's when the female scientist, sitting in the seat next to him, talks to him about the chaos in the world and how the human race will probably die out. The female scientist then introduces herself and shakes the rogue scientist's hands, before saying she works "in insurance". (BTW, I disagree with the comment saying that the female scientist from the future is younger when she appears in the past. She looks exactly the same age. Which makes sense, because Cole didn't appear younger when he time travelled and neither did anyone else from the future)

What does this all say? My conclusions:

CONCLUSION ONE: The female scientist's mission was the contingency plan (i.e. insurance) when Cole failed to obtain a sample of the unmutated virus and instead tried to be a hero by trying to alter the future by attempting to stop the rogue scientist.

CONCLUSION TWO: The people from the future (or at least the decision makers, as represented by the scientists) did not want to alter history and save humanity. When Cole decided to disregard his original mission objective of simply obtaining a virus sample and not attempting to change history, the female scientist appeared on the plane to do the job herself. Presumably, after she had shaken hands with the rogue scientist and thereby obtained an unmutated virus sample, she returned to the future and the people in the future were able to recolonise the surface of the Earth.

CONCLUSION THREE: It was all "about following orders", as Cole said earlier at the airport. What does it say about the decision makers in the future when they would rather simply find a means to counter the virus in their own time to recolonise the earth, rather than change the course of history and save the rest of humanity (5+ billion people). I realise some people might quote a variety of scientific theories explaining why this may be theoretically impossible to change the past, but you must remember... the film itself does not indicate that changing the past is impossible. Yes, Cole does say at various points in the movie that humanity is going to die and nothing is going to change that... but is that a reflection of a scientific limitation of the universe the movie takes place in or is it simply a reflection of Cole's state of mind? His apathy towards the rest of humanity, which he eventually overcomes when he decides to change the course of history? That same apathy we saw in Cole is what we see survive in the scientists from the future. You could argue that the scientists from the future have the ability to change the past because they now know who really released the virus, but that they chose not to stop the virus from being released because it would mean they would no longer be in control of humanity in the future (i.e. their present). If they were not able to change the past, why did they send Cole's "friend from the future" to the airport to retrieve Cole under the threat of killing his psychiatrist girlfriend? Presumably because in their time, they anticipated Cole might try to change the course of history upon learning about the rogue scientist and wanted to stop him from doing so. This would be a reasonable assumption given that when Cole removed the tracking device in his tooth, it would have said to the scientists in the future that Cole wanted to stay in the past & might do "something stupid" (from their perspective) to stop the virus being released and allow him to live the rest of his days in the past with his new love interest.

In my mind, the movie paints a very cynical picture about the people in the future (principally the scientists & their fellow power brokers). Yes, the shard of humanity left survives & is able to recolonise the Earth... but only under the auspices of a select elite who are driven by their desire for power and maintaining the status quo to their own benefit, when they have the ability to change the course of history and save billions of lives.

[edit] Rename this to "12 monkeys"

Could someone explain why this is "Twelve Monkeys" and not "12 Monkeys" like it says on the DVD? -- Sy / ^(talk)

"Twelve Monkeys" is the official title. "12 Monkeys" is the alternative USA title.

[edit] Questions about Ricky Newman

Was the Ricky Newman hoax portrayed in the movie based on a real event?

I believe it was indeed based on a real event (or events). I remember in the early 1990s one or more incidents involving people trapped down wells. It was in fact even parodied on The Simpsons episode Radio Bart, where Bart pretends to be trapped down a well, and the whole town attempts to rescue him, later discovering he wasn't down there at all. I don't have any news sources, but I'm sure that they could be found. Zepheus 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jessica McClure --Mathew5000 00:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have similar memories, but so far, I have been unable to find any direct reference to such an event in any kind of official news story. I'd be interested to know if this kind of event actually happened, or if it was simply an idea meme of that particular portion of the 90's.--66.32.210.218 01:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities to Fight Club

This section needs to be either cleaned up or deleted. Satchfan 02:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I removed these bits of trivia as I feel that they are too trivial. Any complaints can be discussed here. - Zepheus 04:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• An additional irony can be seen in the scene in the movie theatre lobby, where Madeleine Stowe and Bruce Willis embrace. The irony in this is that, in the scene that was just shown from the movie Vertigo, an actor named James embraces a character named Madeleine, whereas here, a character named James embraces an actress named Madeleine.
  • Completely unnecessary. Adds nothing to the understanding of the film. ---I never knew this and found it interesting trivia. What's the point of having a Trivia section if you don't include trivial information?---

• Simon Jones plays one of the scientists who sends the Willis character back to the 1990s. Jones also played the time-travelling Arthur Dent in the venerable BBC production of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the final installment of which likewise concludes with the song What a Wonderful World as performed by Louis Armstrong. Jones has appeared in other Gilliam films.
  • People can click his name to see this info.
• In the animated short film World Record (from The Animatrix) the runner's coach acts and talks like Goines. According to the director, Brad Pitt was an inspiration for the character.
  • This info is probably on the World Record page. Seems unimportant here.

I disagree, as it is a reference to the film and should on this pagea AS WELL as World Record. :: ehmjay 02:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Unless a reference to something has become pervasive in pop culture, there's no need to mention it in the article of the thing referenced. Mention it on the World Record page, that's it. Otherwise wikipedia trivia secions would quickly become lists of duplicated information along the lines of "the Mona Lisa is mentioned in 12,457 movies or works of fiction. They are..."Sir Isaac Lime 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The section about the band Muse is pretty much unbridled speculation. I'm going to check back in about a week, and if nobody has objected, I'm taking it out. Woodstein52 07:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree about the trivia removed. I took out two more things:

• The notion of a time machine that projects the traveller into the past in the nude (i.e., without any equipment) also appears in The Terminator movies and in David Drake's novel Birds of Prey.
  • Okay...so what? If there was a more direct correlation, sure, but this is rather trivial, even for a trivia section. This doesn't seem unique enough to deserve a mention. If one had very clearly inspired the other, sure, but as it is, we may as well mention other movies where a character uses a fake mustache to buy a plane ticket.
• The film was actually based on the experiences of James Bradshaw, a famous 18th century psychologist, who had a patient who claimed to be from the future. ^{[citation needed]}
  • A Google search and a Google Book search brought up no mention of James Bradshaw and his patient. Anyone else come up with anything?Sir Isaac Lime 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Institutional Psychiatry

Removed the following

In both future and present time periods, Cole copes with institutions of professional psychiatry. Though less apparent in the future period, a planned society with scientists in authority, control and manipulation of the population is asserted, presumably through the Permanent Emergency Code, by "diagnosing" inmates with "social diseases" such as "Violence", "Antisocial (Level) 6", "Defiance", "Insolence", and "Disregard of Authority", completely blurring the line between prison and mental institution. This thematic criticism of the role of psychiatric institutions in the shaping of popular expectations and behavior parallels the modern history evaluation made by Adam Curtis in The Century of the Self. Simply put, these inquire whether psychiatric institutions have filled the secular role formerly occupied by the Church in historical religious societies.

Seems to be original research to me. If someone can show otherwise, feel free to do so.Sir Isaac Lime 03:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonlinear timeline films

Does anybody notice how films with nonlinear timelines always start the film the ending scene (this film, The Grudge, and Heavenly Creatures are examples)?--69.253.15.246 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Memento. I guess its just an interesting way to show the story? 139.184.30.19 01:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

I blanked the section "Origins" and replaced it with the copyvio boilerplate and a link of the essay on which the original section seems to be largely based. If you scan the essay for certain phrases, you will find that the section seems to be an edited version of the essay.

I would normally have waited for confirmation that the essay is in fact an earlier work and not derivative, but as the section's style clashes heavily with Wikipedia's style guidelines and the essay is fairly consistent (i.e. it fits better in the essay than in the article), and I was about to post a style rewrite request before I noticed the copyvio through lucky googling, I decided to just temporarily blank the section and post the copyvio notice untill the issue has been resolved.

Right now the only legitimate scenarios I can think of are that A) the original contributor wrote the essay as well and thus implied the release of the section into GPDL (or compatible) by posting it here (without posting a notice in the talk page); B) the section was copied with permission (without a notice in the talk page); or C) the essay was later written by the original contributor (as the styles match perfectly and seem unusual for Wikipedia).

I think some investigation into the article's edit history and maybe The Way Back Machine (i.e. Internet archives) should resolve which came first. In order to avoid any possible legal problems I followed what seems to be common routine and temporarily blanked the section in question (blanking the entire article seemed overkill).

The original text of the section can be found at [1], the essay in question can be found at [2]. I got suspicious because of the section's unusual style and found the essay by googling for "the Peoples were faced with the daunting task of finding someone who would not only click with the material" (from the third paragraph in the section's text). — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the text and the template. Cbrown1023 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I was typing as you did it. Anyway... Good catch. According to the Wayback, that essay by J.D. LaFrance was on the web since at least 2002. [3] The "Origins" section was added, in its entirety, on 20 June, 2006, [4] by Count_Ringworm (Contributions: [5]). Clearly a copyvio. Sir Isaac Lime 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woman on the plane - what she says...

I've read many FAQs about this movie and most of them indicate that the woman actually says "I'm an insurance" rather than "I'm in insurance". This would prove the she is from the future and would leave us to understand things differently than if she says the latter version. Any thoughts? --Childhood's End 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I listened to that word several times and found, that she says "in". The german translation says "in" (in the sense of denoting her occupation), too... --Homer Landskirty 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also listened to this line and it sounds distinctly like "I'm "in" insurance". Coupled with the grammatically questionable usage of anyone saying "an" in this context, I'm quite certain that "in" was the intended word. -- Rydra Wong 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedbacks. I did not listen to it recently. As I said, this is discussed on many FAQs on the web and I thought it could be wise to get it on the board here. --Childhood's End 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea... Even on imdb.com they say "an"... --Homer Landskirty 01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is not always definitive and it certainly increases the propagation of this particular error. Despite this, a google search of the phrase with "in" produces slightly more hits than a search with "an". Also, "in" makes far more sense than "an" both contextually and grammatically. And last but not least the actress very clearly says "in" on my copy of the DVD. -- Rydra Wong 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this script [6], it would be "in" insurance. --Childhood's End 14:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes : Christ allegory

I had added a paragraph about an abvious (at least to me) Christ allegory that is displayed throughout the movie 12 Monkeys. The said paragraph was :

"The movie as a whole could hide a Christ allegory. Not only is James Cole ("J.C.") sent back in our world so save it from death, but i- the scientists in the future could represent God, sending Cole on his self-sacrificing mission; ii- Cole is betrayed and sent to his death in the end by his friend Jose, who would represent Judas; iii- Cole hears a voice in his head, which would be Satan; iv- a mysterious street prophet recognizes Cole as he passes by, giving this prophet the role of St. John the Baptist, and v- Cole is tempted to betray his mission for a woman he comes to love, Dr. Railly, who happens to be played by "Madeleine" Stowe."

I remember that I first saw this idea suggested in a 1995 or 1996 issue of the Cinescape magazine. Now this theme has been removed as of January 16 by another user (Sir Isaac Lime) on the ground that it was unsourced. Indeed, a 12 year old issue of Cinescape cannot be cited here. But I felt that this Christ allegory was obvious enough to be presented without a source. Alone, the street prophet says enough to me (what purpose can he have but to represent St. John the Baptist). Any thoughts about restoring or forgetting this paragraph? --Childhood's End 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a 12 year old issue of Cinescape CAN be cited...in fact, if that's where you saw it, it definitely should be. Citation wasn't the only reason behind removal, however. It repeats a sourced example several lines up: "James Cole is a christ-figure." There is no need to state the same information twice, especially when one paragraph is succinct and sourced, and the other is not. There are numerous weasel words that cloud up every sentence in the paragraph: "the future could represent..." Rather than say what it needs to say, it hems and haws, without anything to back it up. The last sentence, in particular, is ridiculous. Is anyone suggesting that Madeleine Stowe was cast because of her name's similarity to Magdelene? Sir Isaac Lime 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the good Sir Isaac here. I find phrases that include the word "could" quite suspect, and the last sentence smacks of fancruft, and reminiscent of the Lincoln/Kennedy Coincidences. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought Wikipedia always left the door open for improvements before euthanasy. Also, the fact that a prior sentence in the article refers to James Cole as a Christ figure is far from exposing the whole movie as a Christ allegory. Finally, the Christ allegory, as far as I know, as not been confirmed by Gilliam - it remains a theory (although a very good one) and thus requires "coulds" and "woulds". As for Stowe, who knows what Gilliam had in mind? I dont and you should not presume that you do. But this sentence could be removed, of course. --Childhood's End 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "left the door open for improvements before euthanasy." If it's a theory, then it needs a reputable source, that's all there is to it. Please see When to cite sources and Why sources should be cited. I think it might be a good addition to the page (in a more organized form) but it needs citations. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand this. But as I said, the source cannot be quoted here. It's an old issue, and unless I am wrong, Cinescape Magazine has stopped publication. That's why I asked on this forum for thoughts about the "theory". If everyone agrees that 12 Monkeys contains an obvious Christ allegory, the need for a source is no longer relevant since everyone agrees and it becomes an acknowledged fact. The paragraph could then belong in the article. If the idea that a Christ allegory is hidden through 12 Monkeys is contentious, then keep the idea out of the article. That's all. But then, I'd like to be explained what is the prophet's purpose.

Right now, this discussion has gone towards everywhere in matters of technicalities, but no one has expressed his thoughts about the idea of a Christ allegory in this movie, beyond the simplistic idea that James Cole is a "Christ figure". This movie, in my opinion, was hiding more than that. --Childhood's End 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I don't believe that 12 Monkeys contains an obvious Christ allegory. I think we should leave it out (unless it has been published). Also, just because a magazine is not being published any more doesn't mean that old issues cease to exist. I'm sure old editions of Cinescape are available in public libraries. I can check after work. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Couldn't find this at the library. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am correct, the issue's cover featured a Star Strek character. Nevertheless, I do not see how you can so easily dismiss the idea of a Christ allegory. Still waiting for explanations on the prophet's role... --Childhood's End 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the magazine, I checked the directory and they don't carry issues of Cinescape. As for the allegory, I didn't realize that I was required to explain thematic elements of the film. I don't know what his role is; he could be a red herring.

Here are the problems I have with the original text:

• It's poorly written. Putting "i" and "ii" in the middle of sentence is not proper grammar at all.
• It's full of weasel words. Phrases like "could hide a Christ allegory" and "scientists in the future could represent God" make the whole paragraph impossible to prove wrong. Yes, I suppose they could be those things, but on Wikipedia, we want facts and not speculation, which is what the word 'could' signifies.
• It's not cited. Find this information in a professional review of the film or critical theory and we'll put it back in, not as fact, but as an important idea regarding the film.

Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. But... you know, in most modern Law systems, there is this principle that says that procedure should serve law rather than law being in the service of procedure. This means that when the stated procedure would prevent the spirit of the law to be met, procedure should leave the way for what the law intends to do. Anyway... I understand your concerns. But...:

• Considering the whole movie and all the other clues, claiming that the prophet is a red herring seems to be an easy escape...
• If it's poorly written, it can be made better. That's not an argument for erasing something.
• Use of "coulds" and "woulds" is common on wikipedia. The rule is no original research. As you said, it need not (and should not) be presented as a fact, but rather as an important idea. The point here is "do most people agree that there is probably a Christ allegory hidden in 12 Monkeys?" But to not believe it, I think, requires something better than saying that every clue is a red herring...
• Asking citations for obvious things would practically empty wikipedia of 99% of its content. No citation or "professional review" is needed to claim that Independance Day "can be regarded as a remake" of War of the Worlds, and so on. --Childhood's End 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It was erased because it was already stated. If you can find someplace where it mentions that the homeless guy is John the Baptist, great, I agree whole-heartedly with that. Add it to the Christ-figure sentence. But you need a source. Obvious things that don't need a source are things like "the sky is blue" or "12 Monkeys starred Bruce Willis." Otherwise it is original research. Please see WP:NOR and the links Zepheus mentioned for more info. And honestly, the example you gave, "ID4 can be regarded as a remake of of War of the Worlds," SHOULD be cited (it wouldn't be hard, a Google search does wonders), and has weasel words ("can be"? or "is" a remake?"

As for your point about being in the service of procedure, there is a reason the greater Wikipedia community has decided any statement that could be argued should have a citation: because it could be argued. Citations prevent people from editing articles as how they see the subject, rather than having the article be a summary of prevalent thought. It keeps articles from becoming indiscriminate collections of info, and keeps from people deleting valid text.

Oh, and thank you, Childhood'sEnd, for discussing your point of view here rather than trying to start and edit or flame war. You have been far more cool-headed than many other wikipedians I've seen.Sir Isaac Lime 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh I found that good'ol' Cinescape under even older boxes in my wardrobe. Issue Sept.-Oct. 1996. The Christ Allegory is actually raised by a reader (John Shade from Port Orange, Florida) in the "Letters" section, page 8. Mr. Shade actually blames the editor of the magazine who, in a previous edition, criticized 12 Monkeys for being only a "product of the metaphor-deprived 90's". He then explains that the movie actually is a metaphor: it's a Christ Allegory, and he explains all the clues. The Cinescape editor answered this to Mr. Shade : "Thanks for the insight, John. Perhaps if I were a well-paid film reviewer, I would've picked up on that Christ allegory. - Ed." So after all, there's a source to this. I'll add the paragraph again with the reference, unless you disagree. I'll try to make the wording better. ---Childhood's End 03:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting interpretation of the film but it's so wide ranging that it may deserve its own section rather being lumped in with simpler themes. Perhaps a section titled "The film as Christian allegory" would be in order. That would allow more elbow room and a greater defense against what some would deride as the nonprofessional nature of the reviewer/citation in question. -- Rydra Wong 04:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One person's letter to cinescape magazine hardly merits its own section. My suggestion is to add a couple more lines to the "Christ figure" bit, and source it. If there were many articles explaining each part of the allegory, I'd say sure, we should have a more in depth discussion about it. But a single letter? Not enough.Sir Isaac Lime 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It may not be just one person's letter. I would urge folks who favor the inclusion of this information to check The Journal of Religion and Film article Bruce Willis as the Messiah: Human Effort, Salvation and Apocalypticism in Twelve Monkeys [7]. The Journal Of Religion and Popular Culture article The Structural Characteristics of the Cinematic Christ-figure[8] also makes numerous references to Cole as a Christ figure. Hope this helps. -- Rydra Wong 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not only a "reader's letter to a magazine", as you put it, but the idea has also been accepted by the magazine's editor himself, as I pointed it out. --Childhood's End 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, thanks to everyone for your contributions to this discussion, which I think was really worthwhile. --Childhood's End 13:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, we're getting some good stuff, but I still have some problems. First off, one of the links Ryda Wrong posted,[9] is already present in the article, and merely identifies Cole as a Christ-figure, which was already in the article (in fact, I am the one who originally added that source). It's a good article, but so wide ranging that few details apply directly to 12 Monkeys. The other article, however, is more problematic. It explains the Cole as Christ figure details, but then, rather than saying it is a Christ allegory, actually wanders through and says that Cole is a symbol for all Biblical prophets, and then rambles about the future being both hell and heaven, and 1990 being earth and heaven. Most of the parallels he draws are to Old Testament prophets.

Further, this reviewer (whom I do not put any faith in, but am merely listing because it was one of the only relevant hits to a Google search for "christ allegory 12 monkeys," says that Although the director undoubtedly did not devise a Christian allegory to this movie, I saw one in it. The main character's journey to find truth and hope amidst a fallen world was akin to finding truth in Christ in this world for me. The conclusion: even a moment of real love and truth is better than a lifetime of illusion.[10]

Also, going back to the original paragraph removed, a couple of points. Cole is not betrayed and sent to his death by Jose. Cole is not "tempted to betray his mission by the woman he loves" but does betray the mission.Sir Isaac Lime 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Plot Synopsis - corrected - discussion

There are a few errors in the Synopsis, which I attempted to correct but my changes were reverted. I have resubmitted these changes is a new form, and I invite discussion.

1. The previous detailed synopsis omits any mention of Cole's dreams.

2. When does Railly begin to believe that Cole is telling the truth and is not crazy? The synopsis previously suggested that Railly begins to believe Cole during the time she is being held captive by him during his second trip back in time. This is incorrect. The things that lead her to believe Cole are things she learns AFTER Cole disappears in the forest - she sees the TV news story regarding the boy thought to be in the well, she learns from the cops that the bullet is from WWI, and she sees the photo of Cole and Jose. It is only then that she decides that Cole is not crazy.

3. When do Cole and Railly first encounter the animal-rights activists? The synopsis previously suggested that this first encounter happens on Cole's third trip. It actually happens on Cole's second mission, before Cole and Railly go to the Goines mansion. Then later, when Cole returns on his third mission, he finds Railly at the activists' office.

4. The synopsis omitted mention of Railly's voice mail that Cole hears in the future. This point was included in prior versions but was not accurately described. In fact, Railly leaves this voice mail soon after she is reunited with Cole on his third mission, and it proves to them that the Cole's premonitions are real.

5. When does Railly recognize Peters? The audience sees the back of Peters' head as the ticket agent recites his itinerary, but Railly does not. She sees Peters later at the airport newsstand, recognizes him as the apocalypse nut from her book signing, and then sees the newspaper photograph of him with Dr. Goines, which enables her to connect the dots. Obiwan11 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)