Talk:Premonition (2007 film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rozbud08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception

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

We cannot change the future, yet we are given opportunities to make the best of it, as in this case, the death was inevitable, yet she could alter it, and have the grace of a child, and a closure, in a sense her husband died on a happy note! :) (Ekabhishek (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Despite the very reserved critics reviews the film is very positive and worth watching as a family watch. Definately take your loved ones to see it

Removed Trivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

70.71.145.81 15:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

{{endspoiler}}

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

After copying down thew key events from the Plot section of this film and draw a timeline web, I come to a conclusion: That thursday has a timeline branch. Before the sheiff arrive and tell Linda that Jim is dead, Linda is in a completely different web of timeline where Jim never died (evidence supported by the fact she had conversation with Jim on thursday but film said Jim is dead on wed. But after the shieff arrive, Linda is being thrown (for unknown reason) into this version of the timeline (where Jim died on wed). The events of the film then followed)

Basically the first half of thursday belongs to quantum reality A but the second half belongs to quantum reality B. This explains why no Li bottles were seen and why Bridgate does not have scars on thursday

Therefore thursday is indeed the "portal day" where two realities intersect

-Secret Ultraviolet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.115.91 (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Face Scars Problem

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

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

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

It isn't a plot hole, especially since "Thursday" at the beginning of the film is not real. It's just a premonition of what might happen. Back in reality, there was still a chance to prevent her daughter's accident, by putting the stickers up. It was only by not doing that that she essentially sealed her fate.TwilightRukia (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did she engineer it on purpose?

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

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

Plot Details

Wonderful to find plot details, out here! Seem necessary considering such a complicated one as this! (Ekabhishek (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Plot reverts/edits

Download's revert of edits by 24.191.84.41 as a test/sandbox style edit was inappropriate. The user was adding information crucial to the context of the article and the plot of the movie. The same user has added similar, more explanatory text back into the section header, and I for one think it should stay. - The Dark Ride (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this page has seen more activity in the last few hours than it has in months prior. To NuclearWarfare, Download and 24.191.84.41, I hope we can avoid a revert war over pedantic nonsense. - The Dark Ride (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Article was vandalized and showed the text "Suck my boobies" instead of the name of the film on the poster section. Fixed it Borgesdelcarmen (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to clean up the plot section a bit to eliminate some the excessive detail. I am mostly focused on going paragraph by paragraph and simplifying sentences. i.e. To understand the story, you don't need to know that the wife's eyes were covered when they pulled up to the new house, just that it was a surprise. Jabba in the pit (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

actually, it is probably better to revert to the version of the plot from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Premonition_(2007_film)&oldid=117059097 which has a quick plot summary without too much detail and then a list of "clues" from the movie. Anyone else agree with that? Jabba in the pit (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Going from the 15 june 2014 state and cutting back. I have removed most of the unnecessary detail such as the details of stories Father Kennedy tells about other people having similar things. The only detail needed is that he has seen this before and has a solution. Things like this are not part of the plot. I have tried to remove these details in good faith to make the article readable for someone who has not seen the film, but I may have inadvertently taken out semi-relevant details. If you don't like the changes, rather than whole scale reverting them, I recommend checking the details on a case by case basis. By the wikipedia policy on plot summaries, we should be aiming for clear and concise. Thanks Jabba in the pit (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't she simply tell him not to use that particular highway?

I didn't understand this (drawn out) film. The woman twigs her husband is due to die at a certain place on a certain road. So, if she didn't want him to die, why not just tell him not to use that particular road? Why beat around the bush? Why keep it schtum?

Are we suppose to deduce that she wanted him to die? If so, why tell him to turn around, at the end of the movie?

Baffled of London 213.48.46.141 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Movie it was based on

Anyone heard anything about this movie possibly being based on Julia and Julia? Banaticus (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)