Talk:Premonition (2007 film)

Film Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Reception

One question: Is the tragic finale involved with the negative rewievs received? The Reception section does not explain the causes of the critic failure. Anyway, the message from the movie is pointless, making you believe that the future can't be changed. 200.71.186.240 20:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Trivia

Template:Spoiler "Despite pains to keep the film's timeline internally consistent, an inconsistency involving the facial wounds received by Linda's older daughter can still be observed (i.e., scars not being present on Thursday morning despite having been received the wounds on Tuesday of that week)."

I removed this from trivia because many viewers[1] feel the disappearing/re-appearing facial scars prove that the main character is altering the future by her very knowledge of it and attempts to "fix" it. The scars are not seen in versions of the future where she has not had an effect (the "old" future before her premonition) but they are visible in the "new" or "altered" future (after her premonition). This difference in viewpoint is significant enough that this ought not be called a "timeline inconsistency" -- it may very well be integral to the plot and have been planned in exquisite detail. Or not. :) Because of the dispute, I don't think it qualifies as "trivia". Estreya 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be that Thursday (the first day) doesn't fully integrate into the timeline. The wounds/scars are visible after they occur on Tuesday, on Friday and Saturday, and in the "aftermath" at the end of the film. On Wednesday, we see only the younger daughter's face; the older daughter is (perhaps purposely?) only shot from behind. Hence, they're only missing on Thursday. I don't see any old/new dichotomy, and in fact, I don't see any evidence at all that the future is being changed; the theme is very much that the events are fixed and cannot be altered. -- Slordak 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having not seen the film, I really can't argue about its theme. I think the point about altering the future that some viewers were making was that she was so focused on preventing her premonition from coming true that she forgot to protect her daughter from running through the glass (because she was drugged? something like that). Some viewers even felt she caused the accident by distracting her daughter at the crucial moment. They also mentioned that she was the one who caused the final accident by virtue of telling her husband to take a U-turn. Again, I'm just sort of an awkward conduit at this point -- I read though the interesting forum posts (at the link above) arguing these points but I haven't seen the movie myself. :) I'm glad you agree the comment isn't "trivia". Estreya 02:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the film, I'd have to say that it was intentionally put to show that the future could be changed, despite Jim's fate being the same. When Linda was talking with the priest, he tells the story of the man who killed his children after seeing them with the flu, and it later turning out that they didn't have the flu from the autopsy. Assuming this was true, it shows that the future can be changed. I think this is what convinced Linda to attempt to save Jim, which ironically led to his death. DanPMK 13:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems to me that the father saw the tombstones, assumed they were going to die from the flu, and then shot them. They never were going to die from the flu, the tombstones were the results of his having shot his children. I'm inclined to think that the missing scars are a goof.

70.71.145.81 15:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thematically it is not presented that Linda is capable of changing the future, and/or any of the events that transpire. In fact, at every turn, she "does" what she "did", and everything happens as it occured. Perhaps it would best be settled with information from the director, writer, and/or actor(s). (Information that would be cited in order to settle the divergent opinions.)

Does someone know if the events told by priest are true? Are the stories just made up for the film, or were they actual premonitions that have been recorded in history? Monkeynator03 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Endspoiler

I havn't seen anyone mention anything about Jim increasing his life insurance due to Linda telling him he will die. In this way, she did change future events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.131.49 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Face Scars Problem

Having seen the DVD, and scanned it backwards and forwards, the Scars are inconsistently seen on the girl's face. The director created a special summary in the special features that shows the narrative from the point of view of the friends and family. He makes a compelling case that the events are consistent with no time discontinuity, and the woman is just having a breakdown. However the directors narrative, and the edited summary scenes fail to mention the lack of scars on Thursday. I believe that this is an intentional bit of subterfuge because it heightens the dramatic tension when the scars are revealed to the audience, at the same instant where the mother first sees them in her timeline. They sacrificed causality rigor for the sake of emotional impact. In the theaters we cant re-wind and by that time the audience is too turned around anyway. --Tbmorgan74 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that there's likelihood that the discrepancy exists as a means to produce a jarring moment for both character and audience. However, that's just my opinion. What can be taken away from the above is that the special features and commentary of the DVD release (featuring both the director and Sandra Bullock) shed no light on the significance - or lack thereof - of the facial cuts not existing on Thursday. D.brodale 08:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at it as not just experiencing days out of order, and as time travel (which is essentially her experience), the girl not having the scars on Thursday is at least a little consistent. There's always two timelines in time travel - the initial point of departure and the subsequent changes. There already were changes to the past - the fact that she was present during Jim's accident when she experiences it, but that fact was not present when the Sheriff told her about his death. This is a direct result of paradoxes which occur during time travel, especially time travel to multiple points. I don't think this is a plot hole at all. It's a result of divergent timelines which are resultant of time travel. gomer43 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did she engineer it on purpose?

Can a case be made that she, or some alternate personality, deliberately engineered the incident to occur as it did?--Tbmorgan74 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given her apparent level of distress at the time of the "incident" it seems unlikely the protagonist brought it on herself. Her discussion with the minister on Sunday leaves the door open for an outside force to have pressed the situation upon her at a time of emptiness. Or not. D.brodale 08:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]