The possible explanation of the flaws mentioned in this film review for the plot analysis of "Another Dimension Hacker" (based on the derivation of the film's content and some personal guesses )
Injury 1: Fowler's original message to Douglas was: "In case something happens to me, I left you a message in the system." In case, it turns out that he really burps, Douglas can only go to the system to find the answer. It can also be seen from this line that Fowler should have expected his own death in the 1999 program. In the film, the heroine said this to Douglas in 1999: "We programmed this world so no one in it could learn the truth." To put it bluntly, the people who knew the truth in the 1999 program were just bugs in the program, and the programmer's task was to eliminate bugs. Fowler must be clearer, after all, they are also old IT men. Also, Fowler probably wasn't considered a bug before he knew the truth, so David didn't have to think about killing him early on. Regarding David killing Fowler, the audience may think like me that David came to kill Fowler in the 1999 program to debug, but after thinking about it, I think it is not necessarily. After all, David is an existence who enjoys killing people in the virtual world, but also kills the image of his wife in the virtual world, so he probably wants to kill the virtual image of his father-in-law. If so, then David killed Fowler when Fowler just discovered the problem of virtuality in the world. Maybe it was just a coincidence, or maybe he modified a bug while satisfying his perverted desire? If I forgot the motive of David's murder that was clearly explained in the film, please remind me, my friends, thank you for your tolerance. Injury 2: There are only five people in the film who cross to the lower level: Fowler, the heroine, David, Douglas, and Whitney. Whitney did not reveal his name. The heroine and Douglas need to use their real names because of necessity. The heroine needs to inherit the company as Fowler's daughter, and Douglas needs to use her real name to receive Fowler's letter. David only revealed his real name in front of the heroine, which can be said to be necessary. Fowler's use of his real name is central. The core is to play with the lower world as a higher world, regardless of the fact that the character in the lower world is also a thought and emotional being. The incongruity of identity and behavior it brings is the key to the progression of the plot. I think this is a deliberate design of the film, not a bug. In other words, if every traverser just lives in the low-level world as a traversing character, no one will find the abnormality at all. Regarding this, I agree with some of the descriptions in the previous film review, but I don't think it's unreasonable. Take Fowler as an example, his character can't afford Fowler's expenses in the world of 1937 at all. This is a distinction between classes. This treatment in the film effectively reduces the possibility of the characters passing through to meet acquaintances. Moreover, the film mentions that the designer of the program can see all the people the characters in the program interact with, which provides a premise for the traveler to avoid encountering acquaintances. Injury 3: The so-called father-daughter relationship, I think, is just an identity of David's wife's involvement in the incident. After all, her identity in the 1999 program cannot be associated with this company, so how can you control the company and shut it down? 1937 program? The wife of David in 2024, as the creator of the program, can completely insert such a certificate into the 1999 program when she thinks it is necessary, just to see if she thinks it is necessary and when she wants to implant it . During her procedure in 1999, the first time she met with a lawyer, the lawyer said that the case had a good chance of winning. The lawyer also said that Douglas leads the board of directors, so even if David's wife does not need to prove her identity, as long as she can win Douglas, she can shut down the company through Douglas. Taking Douglas may have been one of her goals. The first time the heroine saw Douglas in the film, her eyes were full of indescribable (?) emotions, and it was mentioned later in the film how much the heroine liked Douglas, and even began to pay attention to him when the character was first created. If so, then there is no need for her to continue acting in the program as the daughter of Fowler in 1999, take Douglas, rely on Douglas to shut down the 1937 program, and then have an affair with Douglas in the 1999 program (or take him with him). Go back to 2024), kill two birds with one stone. Injury 4: First of all, we need to be clear about a problem, that is, if the bartender in the program in 1937 did not see Fowler's letter, but also came to the edge of the world by mistake, then he would not understand it based on his cognition. what. At most, he will think he has seen a ghost, unable to connect this with people's amnesia, and even less able to realize that the world is virtual. Fowler's letter belongs to a thesis, and in the letter provides the means of proof to prove his thesis. But without a thesis giving a clue that connects all the phenomena, it is impossible to conclude that the world is fictional. Second, I don't think the question is whether the people in the program are driving out of town, finding boundaries, and proving their world is fake. I think the problem is that even if someone in the program finds out, it doesn't change anything. The bartender in 1937 found out they were fictitious, so he tied Xiao Fan in the trunk and killed himself. That's all. In 1999, Douglas, the police detective, Fowler discovered that the world is virtual, Dao and Fu died, and the police continued to live in a dashing manner. That's all. Get in touch with reality. You know split personality, right? You know you can't go faster than light, right? Have you ever thought that your world is virtual? You should have thought, what happened after that? You can't do it? Or are you looking for other proofs? Or are you looking for your way to the creator world? In the end, the question is still the line: "We programmed this world so no one in it could learn the truth." Besides bugs, there is nothing to fight against the creator. Flaw Five: First of all, I don't think it's appropriate for the bartender to kill Douglas. First, his motive for murder has been shaken. What he cares about is his own world, so when he came to 1999, his first thought was to see what his world was like, so he needed Douglas to tell him. So even if he's going to kill Douglas, he's going to show him how the world in 1937 was built in Douglas. And Douglas also told the bartender that the world in 1999 is also virtual, so killing Douglas will not stop his world in 1937 from continuing to be fucked up, or killing Douglas fart is not just to relieve hatred. Second, he doesn't know the lethality of all kinds of objects in the world 60 years later. I deeply doubt whether he knows how to use the guard's grab, so he is no match for Douglas at all. Secondly, the role of the police officer is still very useful. He was the one who knew about Glass Fowler's death, he was also the one who linked Fowler's death to Douglas, and he also explained the inconsistency of the heroine's identity in the 1999 world, which is undoubtedly the key to the development of the plot, and The progression of these episodes in the role of a police officer is an extremely appropriate and logical arrangement. Similarly, it is also a reasonable arrangement to bring the murderer to justice on the spot as a police officer. If someone else had to kill David, then there would be only the heroine, but the heroine in the movie is really helpless, and this will also make the role of a police officer a bit unfinished. So I think the role of the police officer is more appropriate in the arrangement of the ending. On the other hand, we assume that the bartender wants to kill the male protagonist from the upper world in the 1937 world, and it is not difficult to understand the police officer's arrangement to kill David from the upper world in the 1999 world. The essence of the beliefs of the two characters is: don't mess with my world, okay? From this point of view, the arrangement of the police officer to kill David is more appropriate. Another gain of thinking from this perspective is that it is not difficult to find that the police officer and the bartender, as two characters who cannot travel to the lower world, have great similarities in thinking. After the bartender knew the virtuality of the world, he still served the guests in the hotel, and he found someone to continue serving him before escaping. The police officer was still doing his job to close the case. At least at this point, the choice of the two is the same, which is to accept the fact that their world is virtual, and then complete the work from beginning to end. The film also mentions that it took the officers some time to come to terms with this reality. So I think there is nothing wrong with the psychological change of the role of the police officer. Injury Six: Regarding the issue of crossing characters, I think the film explains it relatively clearly. The computer has created a large number of characters in the program, and each character corresponds to a real person in reality, and the corresponding relationship is maintained by the face. The problem is, first of all, how does the computer obtain the faces of a large number of people in reality. The developer of the program in the film is just an IT company, the face that can be obtained must be smaller than the total population of the world, and the legality is worrying. Secondly, due to the limitations of obtaining faces, there will always be users who cannot match the roles with the same content in the program. For example, a software is only released in the North American market, and we climbed the ladder to use this software and found that registration requires a North American mobile phone number. , which creates the limitations of this matching. My guess on this is that in the 1999 world in the film the program is not public and only three developers (Fowler, Douglas, Whitney) have permission to use it, so just make sure they have their faces in the program . Regarding 2024, there is too little related content in the film to discuss more. Bonus: I think the film makes it obvious enough on the question "Why Douglas drowned by a bartender can return to 1999 with his own consciousness and Whitney can't." Douglas wasn't drowned in the 1937 procedure at all, he was still alive when he was strapped in the trunk. Douglas got out by Whitney pulling him out. I guess the moment Douglas came out, Fan's consciousness returned to the character in the 1937 program, and the bartender didn't kill him. In addition, I want to raise a new doubt, that is, according to the information in the film, the dejavu of all the characters in the world in 1999 were used by people from a higher world, and the first time Douglas saw the heroine, it also occurred dejavu, does it mean that David went to the role of the heroine in 1999 as Douglas before. However, when Douglas met Natasha in the supermarket, that is, the heroine's role in 1999, Natasha did not show the look of Douglas. Either David used Douglas' character to meet Natasha but didn't say hello, or Natasha's character was being used by Jenny when David went to meet Natasha in 1999, but the latter was clearly too far-fetched . Bonus: I think the film makes it obvious enough on the question "Why Douglas drowned by a bartender can return to 1999 with his own consciousness and Whitney can't." Douglas wasn't drowned in the 1937 procedure at all, he was still alive when he was strapped in the trunk. Douglas got out by Whitney pulling him out. I guess the moment Douglas came out, Fan's consciousness returned to the character in the 1937 program, and the bartender didn't kill him. In addition, I want to raise a new doubt, that is, according to the information in the film, the dejavu of all the characters in the world in 1999 were used by people from a higher world, and the first time Douglas saw the heroine, it also occurred dejavu, does it mean that David went to the role of the heroine in 1999 as Douglas before. However, when Douglas met Natasha in the supermarket, that is, the heroine's role in 1999, Natasha did not show the look of Douglas. Either David used Douglas' character to meet Natasha but didn't say hello, or Natasha's character was being used by Jenny when David went to meet Natasha in 1999, but the latter was clearly too far-fetched .
View more about The Thirteenth Floor reviews
