Talk:12 Monkeys/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Genre

Does anyone else feel this is far more of a psychological thriller than a science fiction film? If the point of the film was to illustrate scientific concepts then that would be the case but in 12 monkeys the time travel concept involving plot is merely a devise to illustrate the greater theme of madness vs. reality and philosophical concepts of time itself. The film does not even in the slightest explain anything scientificly, it's not necessary to the plot. Cole could simply have some supernatural time traveling power and the plot, themes and point of the film would remain in tact.

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)

I appreciate this last idea, but I disagree with it: an encyclopedic entry shouldn't have to censor itself. A generic Spoiler Warning would be better. MaherCoen (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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 think anonymous has a good point, although perhaps the interpretation is too definitive. The movie intentionally blurs the lines between reality and delusion. The "scientists" of the future wear white coats, and sit at a long table analyzing Cole; the scientists of 1990 also wear white coats and sit at a long table, analyzing Cole. The female scientist of the future even bears a certain resemblance to Catherine (though obviously not as young or pretty). Cole disappears from a bed in a high-ceilinged, narrow cell with a ventillator, only to wake up in a high-ceilinged narrow cell with a different sort of ventillator -- never the same, but suspiciously similar. There is a scene of Cole being washed in the future; almost the exact scene is repeated at the asylum in 1990. There is a time machine in the future world, and a time machine in the cartoon being watched in the asylum. Cole is drugged in both places, and when he returns from Catherine's world, he always seems to wake up in the future world, as if he had been dreaming. He sees the Bear and Lion in the future world while "topside", but then sees very similar stuffed animals during one of his trips into the past. There is probably no way to resolve all of this, except to say that it is intentionally ambiguous. Note also that as Cole & Catherine arrive at the airport and step out of the cab, a bus pulls up behind them. On the destination band of the bus we see "ESP", which provides a possible resolution the the previous writer's objection: Cole's delusion's are precognitive; he is seeing scenes from the future, but can't fully separate them from reality. This interpretation might also explain why Catherine repeatedly says that she feels as if she's met Cole before -- a thread not adequately explained in the movie. --PJS

PJS, you have almost sold it to me, but no, Catherine did (or - at least - might, according to the plot) saw Cole before, on the picture from WWI that she had while working on her book. 94.178.213.144 (talk)

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

The Fisher King, which Terry Gilliam also directed, also deals with delusions, and the protagonist (Jeff Bridges character) journeys into them. The Brothers Grimm, another Gilliam film, also moves the characters from a situation where they are pretending about supernatural things to a point where they are presented as real. I find this enormously engaging and entertaining, and I bet Gilliam does too. I also think that what these films have in common is pretty original.

This movie draws on existential literature. The scene where Cole digs out his tooth reminds me of an existential short story I read where a person believes there is a tape inside their brain which is playing their reality, and decides to remove it with a knife. The move pi (the symbol) has a similar situation as well.192.88.165.35 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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 states her occupation as being "in insurance", was really there to prevent other assassins failing? By assassins, do you mean someone sent to stop the rogue scientist, Dr Peters, carrying the virus? If so, I disagree. I would argue that what she meant by being "in insurance" was that she was carrying out 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 and try to change history - hence the line about everything being about "following orders".

After Cole dies, we see the scene where the rogue scientist carrying the virus takes his seat aboard the plane (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. This 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 Peters 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 that 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 in which the movie takes place 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 choose 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 and 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 and their fellow power brokers). Yes, the shard of humanity left survives and 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 for their own benefit, when they have the ability to change the course of history and save billions of lives.

Adding to the previous few paragraphs, asking, why not stop the virus altogether?

Who's to say they didn't in the possible future after the film ended. The point where the insurace lady shakes Peters's hand on the plane is the end of the movie, but not the end of the possibilities of an ultimate outcome. The story has to end somewhere. As it ends, viewers are led to see the possible outcomes when the insurance lady returns back to her time. Of course, this leaves an unlimited number of endings but there is always this paradox with time travel movies.

For example: After the the female scientist (insurance lady) returns back to her time, the team of scientists create a cure for the current mutated virus. This was their first plan and they executed it. The scientists with the time machine knew they could probably stop the virus altogether for the first mission but decided to cure the virus first, in case a future mission either failed or changed the timeline so much that they didn't come together and create the time machine (another paradox, I know). For example, if by trying to stop Peters they only make him alter his plans on the first attempt. When this happened different people died at different cities changing the future forever, hence no scientists and no time machine.

I do not believe that the scientists didn't try to stop the virus altogether to stay in power. I believe that they considered it but decided if they stopped the virus, or tried and failed, their entire present reality would cease to exist and would be replcaed with an entirely different one, which would be risky. The scientists figured the safest thing they could do at this point was to start sending people back, refine the time travel process and cure the virus in their present time. After this was done, they could consider other uses for the time machine such as working out a way to save humanity in the first place. Time travel, sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxx71.183.220.205 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

• No, 12 Monkeys is the official title. It's an American movie that was released under that name on December 27, 1995. Twelve Monkeys is an alternative title that was used for its later release in the UK on April 19, 1996. MK2 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

October 14, 1987, 18 month old Jessica McClure fell into a well and was trapped 22 feet from the surface in Midland, Texas. Rescue workers (from the oil fields) spent 56 hours rescuing her. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_McClure) An interesting side note not found in any article is that cave-rescue trained cavers from Texas and Colorado offered their help and expertise and were refused admittance to the "good 'ol boys club". I was a member of cave rescue at the time. We we fully trained in such rescues and could have had her out in maybe 24-36 hours. All the rescuers would have needed to do is dig a side pit about 24 feet plus 12 to 24 inches away from the casing and let us handle digging her out. But that would have denied them being in the news. Read the Wikipedia article about the film "Ace in the Hole" to understand the politics and press coverage pressures that exist in these situations. Fortunately Jessica did not die. Furshur 15:30, August 28, 2021 Mountain Time

Similarities to Fight Club

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

I have seen very many movies compared to Fight Club, it's annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.18.242 (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well aren't both of those two movies featuring Brad Pitt talking about monkeys in space? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.242.66.205 (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
  • 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)

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)

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)

OMG Pulp Fiction!!! 76.118.30.59 (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The prophet says to Cole, "you're one of us" - meaning the prophet was volunteer himself. Having him in the plot adds to reality of Cole's version. 94.178.213.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:12, 11 January 2009 (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)

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)

Proposal for a more concise plot summary

In response to the critique that the existing plot summary is too long, I propose the following. This is 813 words, compared to more than 1700 in the existing plot summary. It is still longer than the typical plot summary, but I believe it is warranted in order to convey the gist of the very complicated storyline, without belaboring details that are interesting but not essential to an understanding of the plot. I would welcome further pruning.

Bruce Willis stars as James Cole, a convict in a post-apocalyptic future in which humans are forced to live underground in a wretched and tyrannical society, after the surface of the Earth was contaminated with a virus that killed most of the human species in 1996–1997. The film has an unusual narrative style, following Cole as he is repeatedly sent back in time by scientists on missions to investigate the origin of the virus -- thought to be linked to a group called The Army of the Twelve Monkeys -- and obtain a sample of the original strain that the scientists can use to formulate a cure and return the human race to the surface. Throughout the film, Cole has recurring dreams involving a chase and a shooting in an airport.

The scientists' time machine is imprecise and Cole often finds himself in the wrong place or time. On his first trip, he arrives in 1990, not 1996 as planned. He is arrested and hospitalized in a mental institution on the diagnosis of Dr. Kathryn Railly (Stowe), and he encounters Jeffrey Goines (Pitt), a fellow mental patient with animal-rights and anti-consumerist leanings. Cole desperately attempts to warn Railly and the other psychiatrists of the impending catastrophe, and tries to leave a voice mail on a number monitored by the scientists in the future, but is unable to. After an unsuccessful escape attempt (aided by Goines), Cole is placed in restraints but is then returned to the future, disappearing from his locked room and baffling his doctors.

Back in his own time, Cole is interviewed by the scientists, who play a voice mail message giving the Army of the Twelve Monkeys' location and saying they are responsible for the virus, but Cole denies having left that message. The scientists also show him a series of photographs, from which Cole identifies a picture of Goines at the head of a pre-plague rally.

After arriving in 1996 on his next trip back in time, Cole kidnaps Railly and sets out in search of Goines, who they learn was a founder of the Army of the Twelve Monkeys. Cole becomes increasingly convinced they are responsible for the virus after learning that Goines' father is a famous virologist. Upon being confronted by Cole, however, Goines denies any involvement with the virus and suggests that wiping out humanity was Cole's idea, originally broached at the psychiatric facility in 1990. Alarmed by this possibility, and beginning to suspect that he is in fact delusional, he decides to turn himself in to authorities, but vanishes again as police approach.

After Cole's disappearance, Railly begins to doubt her diagnosis of Cole after she discovers numerous signs that he is in fact traveling through time. Cole, on the other hand, is convinced that his future experiences are hallucinations, and longs to return to the pre-plague world and be with Railly. He convinces the scientists to send him back again.

Reunited in 1996, shortly before the initial outbreak of the virus, Railly attempts to settle the question of Cole's sanity by leaving a voice mail on the number provided by Cole. When she recites her message to Cole later, they realize that it matches, verbatim, the message the scientists played for Cole prior to his second mission, and they both know that the coming plague is real. They make plans to fly to Key West to avoid the virus.

On their way to the airport, they discover that the Army of the Twelve Monkeys has freed the animals from the city zoo, and does not appear to be related to the epidemic. Cole, now in love with Railly and the music and open air of the pre-infection world, decides that he has done his duty to the future. At the airport, he leaves a last message telling the scientists they are on the wrong track following the Army of the Twelve Monkeys, and that he will not return to his own time. He is soon confronted by a fellow time-traveler sent by the scientists, who gives Cole a handgun and instructions to complete his mission. At the same time, Railly identifies the true culprit behind the virus - Dr. Peters, an assistant at the Goines virology lab. After fighting his way through security, Cole is fatally shot by police as he pulls a gun to stop Peters from boarding his plane. As Cole dies in Railly's arms, she makes eye contact with small boy - the young James Cole witnessing his own death, the scene that will replay in his dreams in years to come.

Dr. Peters, safely on board his plane and having already released the first of several virus samples in his briefcase, sits down next to the lead scientist from the future (Carol Florence). After some small talk with Peters, she introduces herself: "Jones is my name. I'm in insurance."

--Obiwan11 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general with your proposed text - slight reordering, minor additions and further pruning could improve it. Overall a very good start at

chopping this monstrosity down to size -- Rydra Wong 14:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More allegory

Also note that the entire situation never ends, as the ending reverts back to the beginning. So this could be associated with perpetual grace and the concept of eternity. Of course, this is OR. --Skyemoor 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

J.C. Reference

The following paragraph under the section themes should be removed because the reference listed is pure speculation and offers no proof that the J.C. references was intentional on the part of the filmmaker or was merely coincidence. Furthermore, it is clearly an attempt to further an agenda, rather than comment on a film.

James Cole (initials "J. C.") is a Christ-figure "sent from another world to try to save this world for the benefit of all humanity." His death, caused by chasing Dr. Peters, makes it possible for the (future) world to live, by letting the scientists know where to find a non-mutated form of the virus. He wears a blood-stained shirt, in which the letters "Chris-" are the only ones still visible.

The quoted passage has two citations, both from journals, indicating that it is relevant. Whether or not you agree with the take that it is a valid interpretation of the movie, the fact that many see it as a theme means it is worthy of mention, and citation, in this article. Sir Isaac Lime 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. Wikipedia also has guidelines for what is and is not a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F Specifically, the two guidelines "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." and "The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology." Neither of these two sources qualify for any of these guidelines. Furthermore, upon reading the references, neither of them cites any interviews with any cast member or anyone associated with the story. Citing references that include original research does not verify the statement.

First of all let me say that I am not a christian so i have no hidden agenda - i have added the Jesus symbolism back in to the article. The reason I have done this is because the symbolism is in the film, undeniably, and it is a disservice to Terry Gilliam and the writers to ignore it. Writers and directors are not congenital idiots - they know what they are doing. When a director as gifted as Terry Gilliam does the following: - sets a film at Christmas time, - gives the lead role the initials J.C. - entrusts that character with the role of being the saviour of mankind - has him die at the airport, then be reborn as the child in the same scene - has him wear a t-shirt where the only visible writing is Chris... - Makes the plot to destroy humanity, mirror the biblical prophesises of Revelations (7 vials, apocalypse) ... then it is fair to say that Gilliam has put in some religious symbolism into the story. He is in control of his mis en scene - nothing is in the shot without his knowledge - is it a coincedence? It doesnt mean it is a religious story or that Gilliam has religious beliefs he is trying to subliminally pass on - it is just symbolism - like Freudian symbolism. If there were loads of phallic symbols in a film about macho men, would you remove a sentence saying there was Freudian imagery? The Christ/Saviour figure is a recognised character type in films. Is it a coincedence that Superman was sent to Earth by his heavenly father to save the people from themselves, to be a beacon to them, then a childless couple, martha and joe (Mary and Joe) found him and brought him up as their own (virgin birth). Perhaps there is more to screen-writing than you imagined??? But dont judge others by your lack of scope Breed3011 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

None of that addresses the issues, and yes, I would remove any extreme claim that is not verifiable. The second "interpretation", for example, does not assert that the view is fact, but merely says that it is a possible interpretation and then backs it up by referencing something from the producers, the sleeve notes. Wikipedia has strict guidelines on content and this makes an assertion without documentation. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be difficult to prove, but my brief attempts at doing so have turned up no credible references. For an example of what constitutes a mainstream publication that offers proof of this same topic, refer to http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-12-02-narnia-main_x.htm This article quotes numerous respected scholars and, most importantly, Lewis himself. Lastly, I didn't want to address religion because my objection is not about religion, but since you seem to think that everything is so obvious, I will. The initials J. C. are extremely common. In fact, a search for those initials on Google will turn up millions of hits, of which the association with Jesus does not even appear until the 6th page and makes up an overwhelming minority of the hits. In fact, Wikipedia also has a JC page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JC Secondly, many films, especially those that are Oscar hopefuls (12 monkeys was nominated for 2) are released around Christmas time. Lastly, Jesus Christ was not reborn as a child. In fact, he was not reborn at all. Furthermore, the story of Jesus was not the first nor the last to incorporate the theme of rebirth or rising from the dead. It is a fairly common theme. You can see several in the following Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity The same is true of heroism or saving the world. According to the wikipedia article on Monomyth, aka The Hero's Journey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth "Campbell's work has been consciously applied by a wide variety of modern writers and artists, for example, in creating screenplays for movies. The best known is perhaps George Lucas, who has acknowledged a debt to Campbell regarding both the original Star Wars trilogy and its prequels." Indecine 18:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This thing centres only on what you personally judge to be a credible reference cos my internet search threw up several results of sites which liken James Cole to a christ figure. I think that they can be seen as notable too. True, i didnt find an interview with Terry Gilliam where he mentioned it - but absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence. Also you seem to be suggesting that it is all one massive coincedence. Characters arent accidentally named - Also i wrote that the film was set at christmas - not released!!! The "reborn" scence is visually like a 2nd coming (ie the abiding impression is that although he died we see he is alive and well at the end of the film). Now i admit that i thought you were just editing the symbolism out because you had a liberal knee jerk reaction against people sledgehammering religion into films - I see that is not the case, but i still dont know why you are against this theme when so many websites hand reviewers have noted it. Lastly, even if Gilliam hadnt put the symbolism in (which he did!!) but every person who saw the film identified it being there, it would still be considered to have religious symbolism by critics. This is because once a piece of art has been made, it is no longer the property of the artist - it is in the public domain. We dont actually need to know the artist's views or meaning to make a valid practical critiscm. Breed3011 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, not I, determines what is a credible reference. See the discussion above about mainstream publications. Nevertheless, the last revision is closer to a NPOV. I have edited it further for clarity and to enhance the NPOV. I would recommend finding more mainstream sources because I am sure I will not be the last person to question this section. For the record, Terry Gilliam says in the following interview that he "walked away" from the church. In the same interview, he confirms a belief that Americans don't understand symbolism. That would have been a perfect opportunity to discuss the symbolism in the movie had he intended it. http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/int/1998/06/05int.html Additionally, this article http://www.svabhinava.org/reviews/12monkeys/default-FAQ.php makes some very convincing arguments that what you perceive as a Christ-figure is actually an Osiris figure. She makes many more comparisons to Egyptian Mythology, including the title. It is my final opinion that this continues to be insufficiently documented, but I will not pursue it provided the changes are kept, nor will I follow the link (Christ-figure) and begin erasing all the undocumented and poorly documented references there, but they too should be dealt with.

i take it back - you do have a knee jerk anti religion stance. Just because someone plays with religious imagery doesnt mean they are religious, that they pay attention to religion or have any truck with religion in any way. You seem to think that by admitting that there is religious symbolism in the film that it makes gilliam a born again christian. I re-iterate, it is just symbolism. Perhaps your aversion stems from the thread above which grossly overstates its case. Nevertheless i have now found a mainstream review of the film from rotten tomatoes which acknowledges that the film contains biblical imagery. Lastly, i found the Osiris article to be a little bit too unsourced and contain Original Research, but I did agree with the writer when they assterted that the initials J.C. in 12 monkeys is a reference to Jesus Christ. Breed3011 07:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Indecine, FYI I posted the following text on the cabal page you set up.

Hi, Breed3011 here: My basic premise is this. There are several sources I have found on the internet which enforce the case for their being biblical symbolism in the film. Please bear in mind that 12 monkeys is a highly stylised Terry Gilliam film, dealing with the themes of prophesy, apocalype and even Greek mytholgy (Cassandra Syndrome). With all that going on, it doesnt seem too far a strecth to acknowledge that their is also biblical symbolism in the film. Given the themes of the film, I would say that it isnt a "fringe" theory. It is a pretty "mainstream" reading of the film.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F, states that "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". The sources I cited are trustworthy in relation to the subject at hand:, a fanzine, a review from Rotten Tomatoes and 2 religious publications.

I havent found a quote from Terry Gilliam verifying the symbolism but I have found an interview from the Observer newspaper (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,905609,00.html) in which Gilliam says that he was once a Presbytarian Missionary and then he acknowledges the influence biblical stories have on today's stories. "I rate the Holy Bible as literature. It's a good read. And much of our common culture was based on biblical stories."

IMO the symbolism is self evident and doesnt need citing (like in Terminator, John Conner having the initals JC and having the role of saviour of humanity at Judgement Day), but I have found sources anyway. I am not a christian, neither am i religious, but I do feel that Indecine's objection is based on a fear that religious people would abound with endless conspiracy theories and ruin what is an otherwise good page. I dont feel that is a valid reason to deny the truth.

But I will humbly abide by the decision the Cabal make. Breed3011 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have posted the following: In addition to what I have already mentioned, I present the following in support of my reasoning.

Of the top 50 most common male names in America, 7 begin with a J. (James, John, Joseph (Joe), Jason, Jeff, Joshua (Josh), Jerry). Of the top 50 most common surnames in America, 4 begin with C. (Clark, Carter, Campbell, Collins). So, it's not at all a stretch for someone's initials to be innocently J.C., which may explain, to name a few, Jacky Chan, Jim Carrey, John Carpenter, John Cusack, John Cleese, James Cameron, John Candy, not to mention James Cagney.

As for the theme of saving the world, I feel a little silly even addressing that because it's so common. Does "Save the cheerleader, save the world" sound familiar? Heroes (2006). If not, here's just a sampling of the recent movies and tv shows (that are not listed on the Christ-figure page) with the save the world or apocalyptic theme: War of the Worlds (2005), Independence Day (1996), Armageddon (1998/I), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (4 Times), Doctor Who (countless times), Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004), Mars Attacks! (1996), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), The Incredibles (2004), Men in Black (1997), Men in Black II (2002), Starship Troopers (1997), The Core (2003), Sky High (2003), Spy Kids (2001), X-Men (2000), I, Robot (2004), 28 Days Later (2002), Doogal (2006), Children of Men (2006), Agent Cody Banks (2003), GoldenEye (1995), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), Star Trek: Nemesis (2002). See also Apocalypticism, which states that "apocalypticism can be tied to religious or secular views", so its mere presence is not indicative of religious symbolism.

So, yes, a statement like the one that is in dispute is a "fringe theory", which is probably why it hasn't appeared in any mainstream publication. The reason that wikipedia has these rules is to keep people from posting references from just any website. I, for example, own 4 domains (two are movie related), on which I could put any number of articles for use as references. I could even inexpensively self-publish a book, and many people do. For these reasons, it's not enough to have references; they must be quality references. These references are neither mainstream nor quality. In fact, one cites another as a reference, and none of them contain anything other than original research. Indecine 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So Cool Blue, our basic points are this: Indecine thinks it is a pure coincedence that some characters in films who are given the responsibility of being the saviour of humanity - have the initials JC (John Conner in Terminator, James Cole in 12 monkeys). Even though there is other biblical imagery in those films (terminator: a strange other-worldly man comes to earth and impregnates a woman - their offspring will be the saviour of humanity at "Judgement Day" - 12 monkeys: James Cole is sent to Earth at the time of an apocalypse to save humanity, the film even has quotes from Revelations from a street prophet!) and at the end there is a "resurrection" of sorts (in the scene where he dies, we see that he lives on). Indecine treats the directors and screenwriters like they are congenital idiots who arent aware of symbolism or what they are writing about. To indecince these are mere accidents and labelling this symbolism a "fringe theory" shows he has an anti-religion agenda - He is reacting as if I am trying to put the theory of Intelligent Design in to the article. I am not a christian, nor religious yet take offence at this agenda.

I have read in the talk pages a lot of earlier attempts by writers to add the biblical symbolism and I would absolutely concur that some of those attempts represent ludicous Original Research with no basis. Perhaps Indecine is still reacting against those clumsy contributors - but my paragraph was extremely carefully worded see below

Since its release in 1996, fanzines, reviewers and religious publications have detected biblical symbolism in the film. In particular, the lead character James Cole (initials J.C.) seems to fit the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure, a saviour sent to save humanity from itself. The film, set at Christmas time, deals with an apocalypse reminiscent of prophesies in the Book of Revelations (7 vials), some of which is quoted by a street prophet in the film. Furthermore the letters "Chris" are the only visible letters on Cole's t-shirt in one scene in the film.

Now Indecine wrote the paragraph below, which shows that he isnt averse to the symbolism being in the article - he just wants to make out that you are a reglious lunatic if you believe it

A few religious publications have published articles about unconfirmed religious symbolism in the film. They believe that James Cole fits the cinematic character type of a Christ-figure. This belief centers around the protagonist's initials J.C., the film being set at Christmas time, and the name Chris that appears on Cole's t-shirt.

It does seem a little bit obvious that Gilliam hasnt accidentally put the symbolism in there, doesnt it? Breed3011 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually... looking at our 2 different paragraphs, the main difference (apart from my extra sources) is the word "unconfirmed" which is in Indecine's paragraph but not in mine. I would consider the matter resolved if my paragraph went back in the article but with the addition of the word "unconfirmed" before "biblical symbolism" - that would be a highly satisfactory solution for me. How about you Indecine? Breed3011 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needs renamed

The movie is properly titled "12 Monkeys" given the listing in the mediacom guide, and the box cover. Twelve Monkeys shoud redirect to 12 Monkeys, not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.28.217 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's generally preferable to discuss page moves in advance, rather than announcing them performing a unilateral move by yourself, as it's a pain to move them back if people disagree. IMDB lists the film as "Twelve Monkeys", as does the original script. I'm not sure what canonical source is generally used for movie titles on Wikipedia, though. --McGeddon (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDb does indeed list the film as Twelve Monkeys, which would suggest that it is the official name. Can anyone find some reliable sources as to which title is the official one? - • The Giant Puffin • 11:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem fairly certain that the title is Twelve Monkeys and that the '12' is a variation used in the United States. I strongly recommend reverting the present change to reflect that. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the title used on IMDb and on the screenplay is official, and that "12" is a variant. Given that the article was moved against process and without discussion, it should be moved back to "Twelve Monkeys," and that a hidden message should be put at the top of the article asking that it not be moved again. "Twelve" seems to predominate throughout the English-speaking world. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB states it was originally released in the US, and that the US title is "12" not "twelve". A search on amazon shows many "12 Monkeys" and only a couple "Twelve Monkeys", and those are region 2 DVDs. It was not until march 8, 1996, as opposed to dec 27, 1995 that it was released in a region 2 location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.28.217 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to Twelve Monkeys and fixed all the redirects. In future, page moves should be discussed first. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even in the US, this film was released in cinemas as "Twelve Monkeys". "12 Monkeys" is a re-issue title. MaherCoen (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Themes"

The "themes" section is very problematic. There are a number of assertions made therein for which no references are provided. In other cases, the "reference" provided was to an internet version of the script, the veracity of which is debatable. Suffice to say, this section needs to be fixed or removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Twelve Laughing Monkeys vs Twelve Angry Monkeys

I have this film on VHS and DVD. The cover image (the Twelve Monkey logo) differs. In both cases it's printed white on red, but the video cover has been altered so the head-hair of the main monkey is outlined, and the inner mouth is red, not white.

I only mention this because the retouching nevertheless replicates the laughing monkey seen in the film, whereas the DVD cover looks angry. Is it worth mentioning? (The effect is easy to reproduce by scanning either image in monochrome and inverting the colours; copyright forbids me including them here, obviously)

Incidently, the main monkey on the filmed logo is lower down and has '12' above it, plus the word 'monkeys' below, at an angle. Also, the VHS and DVD title fonts differ - the VHS release uses a typewriter font, which seems more appropriate even if it isn't the font used in the intro. MaherCoen (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of time travel theory in this film?

What is the name of this particular theory of time travel, that being that time is set in stone and what happens in the past has already happened and cannot be altered no matter what? AndarielHalo (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of predestination paradox. 99.173.63.38 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Outer Limits - Patient Zero Similarities

The Outer Limits had an episode in 2001 with almost the same ideas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Zero_(The_Outer_Limits) mentioned here. I almost can't believe it had no influence on this, too much similarities. --G4b (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some similarities, yes, but 12 Monkeys came out in '95, so the influence would be the other way around. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with ending summary

I've read the other post regarding the woman on the plane. I acknowledge her as the scientist who has come back to 1996 since otherwise she would have been too young. The man he passes on the escalator, one of the prison guards, is also too old and therefore must have come from the future (or "present" if you will).

The page currently says: It is finally revealed that James Cole did indeed succeed in his mission, and that the scientists are now taking action against the release of the virus, as promised; after some small talk with Peters, the scientist introduces herself: "Jones is my name. I'm in insurance."

I believe that it should be changed from : "and that the scientists are now taking action against the release of the virus" to: "and that the scientists can now find a cure for the virus"

First of all, there is the grandfather paradox in that if they stop the virus from being spread, they will not have been able to go back in time to stop it. Secondly, after Cole has completed his mission, they said that a scientist would be sent back to collect the pure form of the virus. They affirmed in the movie that they had no intention of changing time, possibly because of the paradox. Cole's mission was to correctly identify the person who released the virus. By taking his teeth out, he could not go back to the future to tell them who it was. Thus, I propose that they told him to shoot the person so that he could be more easily identified. He was the only person running away near him (whom Cole was also trying to shoot), and if they were looking carefully, this is how they could have figured out who it was.

Anyway, this has all been discussed in the other post. Thus, I find the page to be inaccurate and that it should be changed to some form of what I proposed. If there are no objections, I will change it myself.

MystRivenExile (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The original is certainly incorrect, but your revision is not technically accurate either. All we actually know about the scientists is that they are able to get a sample of the virus before it mutates. Sir Isaac Lime (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is true, good point. So then perhaps something along the lines of: "and that the scientists are now able to obtain a sample of the pure virus, as promised..." 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MystRivenExile (talk • contribs)

Correct title is "Twelve Monkeys"

The title here - according to IMDb - is spelled incorrectly. Would somebody care to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroock (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there have been long discussions on this matter in the past, and the correct title is 12 Monkeys. Twelve Monkeys is an alternate title, but not the official title. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad link (reference 27)

This link:

http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp

doesn't work as it is supposed to. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

TV adaptation Article

New Article time ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.157.30.106 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 12 Monkeys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19960105%2FREVIEWS%2F601050301%2F1023
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVGbnTP?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1996-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1996-hugo-awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184217/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)