Another Earth : The ending is obvious…

The ending is obvious…

I have run this movie through my mind several times, and there is only one conclusion:

As Rhoda suggest at the ending to John: They might be alive.

As the perfect mirror image shatters right before the accident (as Rhoda look up and sees Earth 2), it is up to chance what happens afterward in Earth 2, because the mirror image is broken. There is no longer symmetry. The paths of Earth 1 and 2 diverge.

Therefore you could argue both for and against whether or not John's family lives.

I'm having a good day: They're probably alive.

The day before yesterday they were dead.

Re: The ending is obvious…

As I stated in another thread, the reason why we know that his family lived is because Rhoda on Earth II did not give John Burroughs on Earth II her ticket. The Rhoda we see from Earth II at the end is there because she won the contest on Earth II to visit Earth I, just as her other self on Earth I did. Had she killed his family on Earth II, then she would have given him her ticket in the same manner, which she did not. If people are wondering how both Rhodas won the contests on both Earths even with the synchronicity off, it's because although they weren't synchronized, she was still the same person with the same compelling essay. Plus, this could be considered a minor hole in the story but it's a movie, so we need to keep that in mind. :-)

Re: The ending is obvious…

But she won the essay contest BECAUSE of what had happened to her. If she hadn't killed his family, she wouldn't have won the contest.

------------------------
Vote History
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37466876

Re: The ending is obvious…

That is true....the ending is the only bad thing about this otherwise awesome film.

Re: The ending is obvious…


That is true....the ending is the only bad thing about this otherwise awesome film.

No, it's not a bad ending. Coming to this board after a 2nd watching last night to find that all of the recent threads are about the ending tell me this: there is no pat answer for the ending and it is having the desired effect: polarizing the audience members to discuss the many varied meanings that it could have.

It causes us to wonder about the synchronicity of it all between the two earths, but mostly, this film really has little to do about there being two earths as it does the drama of their lives and the atonement that happens (and that could have happened in many other varied ways or not at all).

I view the Other Earth as simply being a device that causes us to imagine what our lives would be like if we had not make the same mistakes.

This is either no sci-fi at all or perhaps the best of sci-fi. And I like it.

Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

Re: The ending is obvious…

The ending was perfect. I usually am the type that wants to know exactly what happened but in this case it doesn't matter. All that does matter is that she gave him her ticket, so she gave him a chance.. And Rhoda 2 came to Earth. Presumably because the accident didn't happen on Earth 2, or it did but he lived. This movie was amazing. Some of the best and most realistic writing I have ever seen.

Re: The ending is obvious…

It was discovered just before she crashed and killed his family. So I don't think the difference at that point is very big. I believe Rhoda on Earth II also crashed, but she might have killed him, not his family. As he is the dead one, she could not had a relationship with him, and things didn't unfold as the did for Rhoda on Earth, and she wanted to be gone, so she took the trip her self.

This makes sense to me as it explains why she won and why she took the trip her self.

-
Dziga Vertov:
I am the machine that reveals the world to you, as only I alone am able to see it

Re: The ending is obvious…

I think you're right. It's the only explanation that preserves symmetry: On Earth II, John was dead and his family alive, so sending John up there would mean reuniting him with his family, who would need him.

But of course, the point of the movie is to say that when we think about our actions, we can activiate an additional layer of free will, and control our destiny more carefully than we have been doing so far. Not a huge nor an original point, and the movie was very slow, but I guess it worked. I'm not rating it higher than a 6 out of 10, though.

Re: The ending is obvious…

Hi - interesting discussion on this. Excuse me being slow (!), but can you elaborate on your "of course, the point of the movie" point! Not sure I follow completely why that is what the film is necessarily suggesting, but am interested in the idea - please elaborate!

Re: The ending is obvious…

:-) Well, you know, the movie symbolized two alternative worlds where two different paths were taken. The protagonist wondered whether a different outcome was possible, and when she met the other version of herself from Earth II, it proved that a different path was indeed possible; the other woman had had different experiences and made a different choice; a better one, suggesting a happier life.

So the movie is saying that making better choices is possible. A better choice can come from just a little bit of extra thinking about your actions. To understand (actively, not passively) that you have free will is to do some extra thinking about your actions. Such as paying better attention to the road when you're driving! :-)

Re: The ending is obvious…

best scenario in my mind

Re: The ending is obvious…

Don't you think that its very strange that that the honor went to a convicted felon who killed two people while driving drunk? Is that plausible? Have you considered that Earth 2 is anothing more than a metaphor in Rhoda's journey towards redemption. There are too many odd coincidenses, such as Earth 2 being discovered on the night of the accident. I believe the possibilty that Earth 2 is meant as a metaphor is strongly suggested.

Re: The ending is obvious…

I think it would have been impossible if the mission had been a publicly funded NASA type operation. However, I got the impression that this mission was funded by a Richard Branson type guy. He already had all the necessary specialists and he threw the essay contest out as a publicity stunt. Since HE got to be the final judge he could have chosen anybody. I suspect he wanted to preserve his maverick image and chose someone 'outside the box'. The 'you'll either be in prison or be a millionaire' explanation works for me.

Of course, I think everything that happens after the wreck occurs in her head as a wishful thinking way of dealing with her own guilt.

Re: The ending is obvious…

Another thing about Rhoda, while she was accepted to MIT, she really only had a high school education. This makes the choice of her even more unbelievable.

Not to rehash this entire arguemnt, but I like the metaphorical interpretation of Earth 2, and I believe there is ample evidence to support it. That's the way I saw the film on my first viewing, and its the wayt I will always see the film. But, ultimately, its for the individual viewer to decide. If someone takes the entire thing literally, then that's how they will see the film. In this sense, there is no right or wrong interpretation.

As far as the NASA (government) versus private sector funding of space exploration, I don't think there is a person wealthy enough on this planet to to even begin to be able to fund such an operation. Our space program is a result of decades of government funded research and requires 100s of the world's most brilliant engineers to trouble shoot every little problem. The lunar landings, now 40 years old, represented the apex of human space exploration. But, without massive government funding which began in WW2 and accelerated greatly during the Cold War, there never would have been a moon shot. The lunar landings were really as much a result of the Cold War as anything. This is the reason our space program is at a stand still today (in terms of manned space travel), the research can no longer be funded at war time levels.

For me, this is another reason to doubt the literal interpretation.

Re: The ending is obvious…

I think there are people who are rich enough (or at least good at raising money) to afford one mission. I don't think they will until they can find a way to make it profitable.

Re: The ending is obvious…

That's a good point. I live in New Mexico, where Richard Branson, with quite a bit of help from our corrupt former governor, built the "Spaceport". There was a lot of excitement about this before the financial meltdown of 2008. Now, pretty much nothing is happening down there, and its not even much of a tourist attraction.

But, the idea was to sell tickets on a Space Shuttle mission to the uber rich, such that it would be profitable. The shuttle was to land at the Space Port in southern New Mexico. This just wasn't a successful business model, and nothing panned out. So now, its a huge write off for Branson, and a foolish waste of New Mexican tax payers. This is the sort of stunt Bill Richardson pulled when he was running for President.

But your point is probably correct, with our federal debt and so many things like entitlement pay-outs being high priorites, if there is to be manned space exploration in the future, it will have to be funded by the private sector, with tax incentives from the government. And for this to happen, it will need to be profitable. That's the catch, how can it be made profitable?

Who's High Pitch?

Re: The ending is obvious…

Ever heard of elon musk?

Re: The ending is obvious…

Yes, I had heard of him, but I just googled, and learned quite a bit more, thanks. The Space X is really promising. It certainly is well ahead of anything Branson has done, and an important first step.

I see that Space X recieved a 1.7 billion dollar NASA grant. It seems like this is probably the model for commercial space flight, especially since NASA's budget has been cut so deeply. No doubt, the private sector can get things done more efficiently. The private sector can also attract the best and brightest minds.

There are potential problems with the government/private sector joint ventures in areas like this. Are Space X's proprietary technologies owed to the government? There are issues of imminent domain. Sadly, the biggest issue is the fact that the US will be going through an unprecidented era of fiscal cutbacks and belt tightening in the decades to come. NASA will likely see further budget cuts. I have to chuckle when politicians like Obama and others talk about a manned mission to Mars. There is just no way in h*ll that's going to happen in anybody's lifetime. Something like that would take at least a decade of heavily (government) funded research as well as a massive budget for NASA. This administration, whether right of wrong, has made issues of social and economic equality its highest priorites. There is a price to be paid for this.

But, people like Elon Musk with his vision, may be able to make remarkable things happen. So there is hope.


Who's High Pitch?

Re: The ending is obvious…

So sad people don't get it and get taken in by charismatic executives. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson explained many times, private enterprise wades in only when risks are quantified so that profits can be made.

Original scientific revolutions (including moon landings etc) are completely out of reach (or desire) of profit-seeking individuals. Most major discoveries in the astrophysics realm have no immediate use and are usually quite unexpected. Their profitably applications often aren't found till years or decades later. Basic science research simply is not done for anything but curiosity. Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg... even they had no idea where their ideas would take them.

Re: The ending is obvious…

YOu are wrong you know. Already SpaceX sent a resupply rocket up to the orbiting Space Station, and it will continue.

Private / corporation funding is the future of space travel and there are definintely individuals and corporations rich enough to fund it. It is because of constant government funding cuts that NASA has been downscaling so much lately.

I agree that it wouldn't have been possible years and decades ago, but today it is. I actually checked your date of posting before commenting, but you should know in 2013 about SpaceX, etc.

Re: The ending is obvious…

What exactly am I wrong about? I discuss SpaceX in my post. I also point out that SpaceX got a very large grant from NASA. SpaceX is a step in the right direction, and you are right, it would not have been possible during the Cold War. This, because the US Government would never have shared technologies with the private sector.

The private sector very likely is the future of manned space travel, but if this is the case, then humans won't be going very far from Earth in a very long time if ever. In the case of SpaceX, resupplying the Space Station is sort of small beans. Its sort of like "been there done that". You think SpaceX will make a mission to Mars within our lifetimes? That's laughable.

The fact is that that the Lunar Landings of the late-60s, early-70s were only possible after decades of massive, Cold War era, government funding of the required research. In fact, NASA's Space Program really "piggy backs" off the large-scale government funded research of the Second World War. So, actually what WAS possible decades ago, is NOT possible today.

You could combine the resources of the ten or twenty wealthiest people/corporations on the planet, and you wouldn't even begin to approach the funding necessary for a manned mission to Mars. The engineering costs alone would be prohibitive.

The Manhattan Project is an excellent example. It was only through the war-time budget of the world's emerging super power that such a project could have been realized. 1000s of the nation's elite engineers, and some of the greatest scientific minds of modern times were needed in this endeavor, and the US government essentially conscripted them.

How much would this cost the private sector today? We are talking trillions.

"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"

Re: The ending is obvious…

I agree with you of course that WWII and the Cold War, did encourage not only space travel, but also a lot of technology being pushed forward. Hell, if it wasn't for WWII we wouldn't be here sitting and typing to each from across the globe on the internet.

Yet, things are changing. You fail to realise that space travel can also become profitable, such as mining asteroids for example. Have you also read about the Mars One project?

SpaceX received assistance and help from NASA, not "funding". They have CONTRACTS with NASA, i.e. they provide a service and NASA pays for it. They also have contracts with several other companies. To quote:

"NASA has also awarded SpaceX a contract to develop and demonstrate a human-rated Dragon as part of its Commercial Crew Development program to transport crew to the ISS. SpaceX is planning its first crewed Dragon/Falcon 9 flight in 2015, when it expects to have a fully certified, human-rated launch escape system incorporated into the spacecraft.

Besides NASA contracts, SpaceX has signed contracts with private sector companies, non-American government agencies and the American military for its launch services. It has already launched, for a paying customer, a low earth orbiting satellite with its Falcon 1 booster in 2009. The company plans to launch its first commercial geostationary satellite in 2013 from a Falcon 9."

This is the beginning of commercial space flights and of course its still in its infancy. Governments cannot support these costly endeavours anymore, so private commercial companies are taking over. Not paying for it all themselves of course, but getting funding from many different governments and companies.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but there are corporations out there that have massive budgets. Corporations are taking over the world, most presidents and politicians are in their pockets, in case you haven't noticed.

Re: The ending is obvious…

To your last point, I have noticed.

This is an excellent discussion, btw.

As far as grants and funding, I consider them to be the same thing.

You do make some good arguments. Corporations may be taking over the World in some ways. I would love to see the human race get to the point where manned space travel could become a priority. I just think we have a long way to go. We have to solve a whole lot of other problems first. Corporations can take the lead in the area of space travel, but I don't think they can succeed with some big time government help.

When I see that over 60% of the massive US fiscal annual budget goes to paying entitlements, I get really discouraged. Our federal government has promised way more than it can deliver along these lines. When I see that a large % of Obama's 2009 stimulus went to bailing out local jurisdictions (who can no longer pay out their promised entitlements), I get a bit angry. I don't want to make this a political thing, but I would much rather have seen that money go towards scientific research and educational grants to encourage young people to become engineers, physicists, etc.

From an apolitical perspective, I think the US government needs to start investing in its future. Increasing the NASA budget, while slashing massive waste in the Pentagon budget would be a good start.

"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"

Re: The ending is obvious…

Yup, I also enjoy this discussion! :)

I am not from the US, but it does sadden me when I read in the papers the amounts that are being spent on the military and on social grants and bail-outs, while the space exploration budget is annually being slashed. We've always looked to NASA to lead the way, but it seems they are losing their way now due to funding.

I agree that now in its initial stages, corporations still need the backing of governments to get into space travel, but as soon as it becomes profitable, things may change. If there is enough profit to be had, it will become a priority. Unfortunate but true.

It irks me when people comment on space travel articles that the money should rather go to feeding the poor or somesuch. Don't they realise that space exploration and scientific enquiry can in the long run eradicate such problems?

Re: The ending is obvious…

That is a false conclusion. If Rhoda2 had not had an accident, it was still possible for her to win. All it means is she won with a different essay.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LogicalImplication

she had killed his family -> she wrote the winning essay
1 -> 1 = true

she had not killed his family -> she wrote the winning essay
0 -> 1 = true

Re: The ending is obvious…


That is a false conclusion. If Rhoda2 had not had an accident, it was still possible for her to win. All it means is she won with a different essay.
Exactly, and I think this is the version of events that is by far the most elegant and best fits the story. It's also plausible, because Rhoda 2 would be an MIT graduate in Astronomy, which could be very useful in writing a winning essay.

There's a clue that this is the intended interpretation, in that Rhoda 2 is smartly dressed and is shocked to see her counterpart looking so rough. This indicates that she hasn't been through all the grief that Rhoda 1 has experienced. It's a good ending to the story because now Rhoda 1 can see, as opposed to merely imagine, what might have been - and so can John Burroughs.

Re: The ending is obvious…

How do you know what Earth II Rhoda would have experienced? What she would've been good at? Remember, this was an MIT-accepted student, so she could've written an equally compelling letter about why a young scientist should go...

Re: The ending is obvious…

Because the symmetry is off, she decides to go anyway regardless of whether the family is alive or not. That's all I could come up with.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

Re: The ending is obvious…

She could have won it through since then she would have become a brilliant scientist.




Ich bin kein ausgeklgelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

Re: The ending is obvious…


But she won the essay contest BECAUSE of what had happened to her. If she hadn't killed his family, she wouldn't have won the contest.


We are not shown what she wrote to win the essay and that is deliberate. If we take the "real" interpretation of the movie then the essay had nothing to do with the accident. On Earth 2 she didn't have an accident, she won the essay contest and travlled to Earth 1. Notice how stylish she looks compared to the scruffy girl on Earth 1 who has spent 4 years in prison.

The metaphoric, wish-fulfillment interpretation also makes sense. Earth 2 could simply be her mental invention. A way of changing things so the man could get his family back and she didn't gave to go to prison, etc..

But the way the story is structured, it leans a bit more toward the "Earth 2 is real" interpretation. This is because we first hear about Earth 2 before the accident. If Earth 2 was purely a mental construct we might expect the writers to cause it appear after the accident. Perhaps as part of her suicidal dying dream.

Re: The ending is obvious…

If the synchronicity was broken before the accident, maybe Rhoda2 killed John2 along with his entire family so there was no one to give the ticket to. Rhoda2 was motivated to come to Earth1 to tell her that Rhoda1 was actually in better emotional shape than Rhoda2 and to chill out. Frankly I didn't see Rhoda2 as looking any more together than Rhoda1 considering that if you are going to visit another planet you might want to look emotionally together (combed hair, new clothes, makeup, etc.)
Your theory on both Rhoda's winning the contest defies the Occam Razor principle. The simplest solution is that someone else win the contest on Earth2.

Sequel:

Another Sex Earth Too

Rhoda1 and Rhoda2 and have the most bizarre lesbian incestuous sex ever.

As you might have guessed I really disliked this movie except for the fact that I live within short distance from where it was filmed (New Haven, CT) and find picking out locations sorta fun.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

Re: The ending is obvious…

just wondering what is Burrough gonna do in Earth 2? Burrough#2 would still be alive right. What is he gonna do there?

Re: The ending is obvious…

maby John Burrough it to her in that world

Re: The ending is obvious…

It could be his return ticket, hence he wants to stay there, his family may be alive.

Re: The ending is obvious…

I'm not sure that the ending is obvious.

No way could Rhoda II have had exactly the same car accident as Rhoda I.

When she crashes the car (on Earth I) it is night-time - she looks up and sees Earth II lit up by sunlight (it wouldn't have been visible otherwise) - this means that on the Earth II assuming that it is nighttime where her doppleganger is then the doppleganger would not be able to see Earth I and so would not have had the same car crash because she would probably have been looking at the road, not the skies.

This could leave an interesting ending - in that Rhoda I is distracted and drunk and has killed the mom and child but Rhoda II is only drunk, maybe still crashes but kills John while the mom and child survive.
This ending would allow for the fact that Rhoda II gets her interplanetary ticket, as she would still have gone to jail but it would also allow for a "happy" ending as John gets to Earth II and finds his doppleganger wife and children survived while he died.

Just a thought.

Re: The ending is obvious…

Interesting thoughts, but I'm not sure the writers were smart enough to have figured it out that way.

clap.gif TxMike wave3.gif
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

Re: The ending is obvious…

^^This^^

Re: The ending is obvious…

Or they didn't care. Or why not; the sun might be illuminating both earths, even it's dark where the girl is, the sun can illuminate another part of earth 1 visible from earth 2.

Spain

Re: The ending is obvious…

I agree. And that actually makes for a happy ending. In Earth2 Rhoda also crashed but killed John instead of the wife and son, so she went to jail and wrote that same essay to win the ticket. At the end John from Earth1 travels to Earth2 and the family is reunited. Rhoda2 travels to Earth1 because there was no John to give the ticket to.

Re: The ending is obvious…

I shocked and said "that's it" I never want to see this film again I thought it would be somthing cool like those other films

Bond James Bond

Re: The ending is obvious…

Rhoda II was likely a gifted astrophysicist, so she could have gotten on the journey purely as part of the expedition itself, with no gimmicky contest essay necessary.

*****

"Mark Wahlberg is wearing a hat."

Re: The ending is obvious…

John arrive earth 2 to find his family alive, and give his "return to earth 1" ticket to Rhoda 2. Atleast thats what both me and my wife instantly thought when we saw it yesterday. Good movie btw.

Re: The ending is obvious…

Sorry, but there's no way there was a return ticket. Nothing we have (or therefore Earth 2 could have) would have enough fuel for 2 liftoffs from Earth. The space shuttle couldn't take off after landing, it needed that huge booster that was bigger than the ship itself! That was why John was originally so upset at her leaving, he knew she'd never be back.

Re: The ending is obvious…

Uh...they could just send back the Earth 1 people on an Earth 2 rocket. Derp.

Re: The ending is obvious…

Why would they give away a $10 million ticket when they have their own contest and people who want to go?

Re: The ending is obvious…

John1 would have found John2 alive and kickin on Earth2 and blown John1's head off with an Earth2 shotgun if John1 made any advance toward John2's wife or kids. I would find John1 a threat if I was John2. This is a major credibility destroying facet of the movie. Of what possible good is it to John1 to go to Earth2 if John2 is in the picture?! That would have just depressed him even more. Stupid movie. Stupid fan-boys.


As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

Re: The ending is obvious…

This^^^^

It was the first thing I said to my partner when the movie concluded.

I was all, "What's the point of going to Earth2 if his other self is going to be there with his family as well?"

This could have been a good movie if they approached it as a straight forward Bergman-esque drama exploring themes of love, loss, redemption, and forgiveness.

The sci-fi aspect, and I use that term loosely, was what killed it for me.

Re: The ending is obvious…

John1 goes to Earth2 to see if the doppelganger family is alive. He is still grieving for his lost family. Just seeing and interacting with the doppelgangers might be enough for him to move on. Who says he would necessarily attempt to come between John2 and his family?

Stupid!!

I have a much bigger problem with the synchronicity/broken synchonicity aspect of the film. I can live with a multiverse concept but not 2 identical planets with identical people in the same universe. But hey, that's just the way the writers decided to go. It's no biggie.

Re: The ending is obvious…

No. It's not stupid.

That is your interpretation of the end of the film.

The movie purposely has an open ending so each one of us can come up with our own conclusions.

Your conclusion differs from mine. That is all. It doesn't make your conclusion better or worse than mine.

Re: The ending is obvious…

I stand by my statement but maybe I should have said ridiculous instead of stupid. Deciding a movie is good or bad based on the conclusion that you yourself have chosen rather than what is IN the actual movie is ridiculous.
Top