Talk:Triangle (2009 British film)

Untitled

This article could use a shit load of more detail. What does the director's commentary say? Please add to or correct the spoiler plot as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punshon80 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2001 film

Sounds awfully similar to The Triangle (film). Coincidence or remake? --Lennier1 (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's absolutely not similar to The Triangle beyond a plot device which involves a group boarding a mysterious ship at sea. The movie has more in common with Groundhog's Day. 128.248.143.38 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Plot

I strongly disagree with major elements to the revisions to the spoiler plot made by 82.6.78.47 and have reverted much of it back to my version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punshon80 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Please don't remove detail from the plot. This movie is confusing to watch and many people will appreciate having this level of detail. There are plenty of other sources for less detailed plot descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.68.87 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed much of the WP:OR analysis of the plot that seems to be one user's interpretation, without any sources cited to back it up. I have found no sources to support the A1/B3/A2 Jess hypothesis which itself doesn't seem to follow the plot at all. Please do not re-add without citing appropriate sources. Little Professor (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you find this interesting, see also Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.109.130 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Jess, in shock, loses most of her recent memories."

I don't agree with this interpretation at all. I think the movie makes it very clear that she knows exactly where the driver should take her and why (telling him to go "to the habor" - so that she can repeat the cycle to save her son; assuring the taxi driver to "come back", apologizing to her friend (for what she did/must do again). Of course, one could say that these are also just personal interpretations. But I think there are enough "hints" in the movie to make clear that she has not lost her memory (or at the very least we could agree that there is doubt about this interpretation) and it therefore should be removed from the plot description. But I won't do it myself. I am not interested in an edit war with someone who thinks that only he understood the movie. --78.54.17.27 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do totaly agree with the last argument and do stongly suggest to remove the anamnesis interpretation. In my interpretation, the film finally reveals itself as an allegoric depiction of a mother who witnesses her own repeated violence against her son. Her repeated attempts to escape her violent behaviour and to start a new and better life are failing, because they end in violence against her own self. The anamnesis interpretation would degrade the plot to a meaningless time-loop, an error in fate. It is the difference between a depiction of self-fulfilling prophecy due to internal decisions or a depiction of an external Sisyphos determination. -- Lounge7 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The amnesia thing is too far fetched and i took it out. Indeed during the 3 iterations on the ship the first Jesse never did several things a "third" Jesse did, like murdering Downey cold-blooded in room 237 etc. So she must return to the ship a second time with full, or at least partial, memory to fulfill the time loop correctly. StoneProphet (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Sisyphus should be mentioned too, it might be the key to her ultimate return too. 82.217.116.224 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Main Jess obviously wants to go back to the ship after her son died in that accident and drives to the harbor by cab so she can enter the yacht to get to the ship. At least this is what most viewers of the film might think.

But I think there are some logic mistakes with this hypothesis: If Jess is really in a time loop, then why didn't she know about all this stuff while entering the ship the first time? She can vaguely remember those things and has some déjà-vus at the beginning of the film but she doesn't know anything although she behaves exactly as she did at the end of the film (saying her son is in school although she saw his son dead, Victor acts just the way he did when being greeted by Greg, Jess apologizes to Greg, it all happened two times). This suggests that her knowledge at the end of the movie is just as it was at the beginning. However, this means that her son is already dead when she enters the yacht the first time (and she knows it as well). I definitely assume that she doesn't only know about her son's dead when the film concludes but also that she knew it when she enters the yacht the first time (although the viewer doesn't know for dramatical reasons).

If that's the case — and this is the only logical conclusion I can come up with — she didn't lose her memories in the accident (wouldn't make any sense anyways because she sees her dead son AFTER the accident) but while sleeping on the yacht because later in the movie when already on the ship she clearly states she has a son to care about and it's pretty obvious that her son is alive while she's on the ship (or at least she thinks he's alive). Maybe the screenwriters schedule the "time loop moment", i. g. the moment the loop triggers, to when she sleeps. She knows everything before she sleeps (her son's dead, the existence of the time loop) but she clearly doesn't know anything after she woke up (she thinks she had nightmares, she thinks her son is alive, she only has some déjà-vus).

When Jess enters the ship after the storm, there IS already another Jess on board, which makes it impossible that we see the beginning of the time loop (a time loop can't have a beginning anyways). The only solution to this problem is that Main Jess actually loses her memory of what happened, effectively creating exactly the same time loop as we see it in the film, and even if it sometimes seems that she can escape from the time loop those moments are actually part of the time loop itself.

So my conclusion is: At the very start of the film we don't see Main Jess but another Jess and we see her son alive, Main Jess kills the other Jess off-screen, now Main Jess appears the first time and she says to her son that it was only a dream, her son dies off-screen, Main Jess goes to the harbor by cab knowing her son's dead, she enters the yacht, she sleeps in the yacht and loses her memories, the main part of the movie takes place, she gets back to her house (with everything that happened in the beginning of the film now happening again!), she kills her other ego on-screen, she again says to her son that it was only a dream, her son dies on-screen, she goes to the harbor by cab knowing her son's dead, she enters the yacht, the movie ends... I'd bet in the yacht she goes to sleep and she's still in the time loop forever and ever.--31.16.64.47 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What makes this "British"?

OK, the director is a Brit, and a lot of financing came from the UK. But the characters and situations are all American. It was filmed in Australia with a mostly Australian cast.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's currently unsourced, but the British Film Institute says it's a British-Australian coproduction. The European Audiovisual Observatory says the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, that's what article should say. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible logic mistakes?

I know it's pretty difficult to make a time travelling movie without logic mistakes, and this movie is some kind of time travelling movie if you think about it. But still there are some points I'd like to clarify which I consider rather harsh logic mistakes, although I really enjoyed the film itself.

1. There's a scene with "shooter Jess" killing another Jess and Main Jess observing this murder (according to this article the other Jess kills the shooter one, but I don't think so, it doesn't actually matter though) while Sally dies in the place with all those dead bodies of herself. Shortly afterwards, the yacht appears again and the posse board the ship, meaning there are still three Jesses on the ship (the "shooter Jess", the Main Jess and the Jess just boarding the ship, with "shooter Jess" being the Jess the newcomers see), but for the rest of the film only two Jesses are to be seen with "shooter Jess" seemingly disappearing from screenplay (and the Main Jess becoming the shooter Jess trying to kill the group). What happened to the third Jess? Did I miss something?
2. How did the Main Jess escape from the car after the incident, seemingly unharmed? After the accident her dead son is shown and the already dead Jess that was hidden in the bag, but Main Jess drove this car and couldn't have escaped that easily. And even if so the people around them should notice that neither the kid (that was sitting on the backseat) nor the already dead Jess (who was in the bag) could have driven the car in the first place. However, Main Jess was healthily and unharmed standing next to the car and nobody cared about her leaving by taxi although someone must have seen her climbing out of the car. I really don't understand what was going on there.--31.16.64.47 (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are logic mistakes. I can point out one: there are TWO different "killer Jess"es, one shot people without being shot back, and another was shot back by a "good Jess" and got hurt on the forehead. The latter one is logically not possible in the movie's plot. This movie is a sham, much worse than Spanish "Time crimes" which has no obvious logic mistakes. --174.81.51.210 (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Warning: lots of spoilers follow.

• time travelling movie

The only time there is time travel is when she wakes up on the beach.

There is no time travel on the cruise ship. She is not seeing her "past self", she is seeing duplicates of herself.

Imagine it like it's Star Trek and the transporter is broken and keeps creating duplicates, and it will be easier to understand.

• What happened to the third Jess? Did I miss something?

While there are multiple Jesses on the ship, each time they are different Jesses. Consider Sally. It's not "Jess 1, 2, 3" and more than it is "Sally 1, 2, 3". It's an endless series of Jess and Sally.

We are not seeing the same 20 mins repeating, we are seeing completely new Jesses board the ship. It's not a "time loop", per se, but it is a functional "loop" of repeated actions because the same people keep performing the same actions. That is why loops are different, and sometimes there is a shooter Jess and sometimes there is not. The loops are flip-flopping between two states, and only every 2nd Jess will end up becoming shooter Jess. (I think, I haven't drawn this out of paper, maybe it's every 3rd Jess?)

In theory, Jess could change things, but she probably won't. It's not fate, but each new Jess doesn't know, and is always going to turn to the right of her own free will.

• How did the Main Jess escape from the car after the incident, seemingly unharmed?

BIG SPOILER: According to the director, maybe she didn't and the entire movie is Jess in purgatory - it was deliberately shot that way to make it open to interpretation, but there's not really any other interpretation that makes the movie make sense as a whole.

The pile of birds still doesn't make sense though, nor does Jess' initial confusion make sense if it is not her first loop. While watching the movie a section time does help make sense of it, especially thinking of the new arrivals are "transporter duplicates", it falls apart if you think about the fact that the Jess at the end of the film becomes the Jess at the start of the film.

2600:8807:5481:200:84FA:68C4:A31:1AA7 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Triangle (2009 British film)→Triangle (2009 English-language film) and Triangle (2009 South Korean film)→Triangle (2009 Korean-language film). The current setup is broken, and I believe the above one, suggested late in the discussion, gained enough traction. Anyway, per WP:THREEOUTCOMES #3 I think this is the best solution of the impasse. No such user (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Triangle (2009 British film) → Triangle (2009 film) – Revert per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Use {{distinguish}} or {{for}} template to indicate the alternative South Korean film of the same name. Not only is the former film better known but the disambiguation parenthesis is confusing as it states "British film" when it is actually a British-Australian co-production. DA1 (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

See Amendment below. DA1 (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Bradv 04:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Placed as a discussion as the move was five years ago, and it was disputed at WP:RM/TR. -- Alex^TW 04:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. An article (not just film articles) which is already disambiguated cannot be a primary topic. --Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Speaking of co-productions, the "South Korean film" is actually a Korean-Japanese co-production. Are there better ways to disambiguate? Timmyshin (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:INCDAB (further detail at WP:PDAB). Parenthetical partial disambiguation is generally a bad idea. Such cases are rare on Wikipedia. None of them that I'm aware of are films. I have no objection to considering other ways of dealing with the co-production issue. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

While opposing the proposed change is fair, it doesn't address a solution to the core problem in that the titles are incorrect. I don't see this any different than any other case of mistaken titling. That needs a solution. I could not find the movie when I was trying to look it up myself and when I did I realized the mishap and henceforth proposed a name change. DA1 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Amendment Sticking with WP:PRIMARYFILM then, another option it states is adding "a descriptive adjective". I would then propose that the changes instead be:

Triangle (2009 British film) → Triangle (2009 thriller film)

Triangle (2009 South Korean film) → Triangle (2009 comedy film)

While also including a hatnote to the other article in lede. Of course, these are redlinks so easily doable but I may as well put that idea in the discussion. @Lugnuts, Gonnym, BarrelProof, Timmyshin. —DA1 (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand the descriptive adjective as the exact example, which compares the format - animated vs life-action and film vs short film and not the genre. Genres are not a good choice as a) it isn't usually just one and b) it usually is debated. Triangle (2009 British film) is called psychological horror thriller film in the lead, so "Triangle (2009 thriller film)" is just cherry-picking one of them. I'll add that the television naming convention is pretty much against genres. That said, the current style is indeed incorrect as it isn't just British or S. Korean, but a joint production. Sadly, the the film NC guideline doesn't handle this, as editors seemingly prefer endless case-by-case discussions than a good guideline. I know that television articles that are joint productions tend to say "(<country A> and <country B> TV series)" but couldn't find examples of films using this. That style though would be my preference. --Gonnym (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I don't think it refers strictly to the "format", otherwise it would have just said so instead of "a descriptive adjective." I do admit that choosing thriller is arbitrary, but if we go by WEIGHT than it works. The film has been variously described as "psychological thriller", "psychological horror thriller" and just thriller. I don't see this as being the same as say leaving out Australia but keeping Britain as they share equal weight. But in this case, the film is widely considered a thriller, the rest are additional descriptors. DA1 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose because there is no reason to establish hierarchy among secondary topics. All secondary topics should be disambiguated for one other. I would be fine with renaming while maintaining that both topics are disambiguated from each other. I would suggest "English-language" and "Korean-language" respectively. Sometimes I use "-language" in opening sentences when the nationality mash-up is too weird, like Blindness (2008 film) is English-language despite being a Brazil-Canada-Japan co-production. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I support the "-language" proposal in general. But instead of "2009 Korean-language film" and "2009 English-language film", isn't it simpler to use "2009 Korean film" and "2009 English film" instead? No need to be pedantic, in my view. Timmyshin (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: "English film" implies film from England and is effectively the same as British. If we can choose "English" and "Korean" (which again, is effectively redundant to South Korean) I don't see why "thriller film" and "comedy film" is worse. That seems to be the best option. DA1 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:PTOPIC refers to terms, artificially disambiguated titles, those which use brackets or commas aren't terms. "Triangle (2009 film)" isn't a term, just like "Higham, Suffolk" isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Would you like to comment on the Amendment and other suggestions?

I'm noticing almost none of the voters are actually commenting on the discussion or alternative, other than drop an oppose vote which doesn't really solve the problem at hand. It's fine to oppose a faulty proposal, but that shouldn't mean keeping an already incorrect title. DA1 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I support the alternative suggestions as both titles are inaccurate as the films are of 2 nations, not just 1. My oppose was just to moving it to the incomplete disambiguation, but not to moving it to a better fully disambiguated title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not really a time loop movie

Contrary to usual time loop movies, this one is rather different, as there is no reset. From the Time loop article: "whereas time loops are constantly resetting". Here, events are repeating (because the timeline on the ocean liner is actually like a circle), but instead of a reset, one gets multiple versions of characters. Hence the question: should the classification as a time loop movie be dropped? — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that calling it a "time loop" movie is misleading (unless you consider the ending).

But I'm unsure of a better word for it. There is a loop of sorts, in that events keep repeating. I like what you said about "timeline on the ocean liner is actually like a circle" - time is ticking away on the cruise ship itself, but is the cruise stuck in time? It would also be misleading to say the cruise ship is in a time loop, as the new arrivals are duplicates rather than "past versions".

2600:8807:5481:200:84FA:68C4:A31:1AA7 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)