im sure this has already been asked...but im new.

i think jack kills tyler not by shooting him but by willing him gone. the gunshot shows how committed he is to getting rid of tyler, and it's not till he can make such a sacrificial gesture that he can get rid of him.

of course, the movie is different from the book. i think in the book he's more intent on getting rid of tyler by killing himself, too, and there's more of this ridiculous irony in the fact that he doesn't. also the ending of the book is vastly different from the movie, and really changes the whole tone of the story from one to the other.

It's widespread belief (and backed up by nearly every, if not every case of DID) that all multiples have a history of childhood trauma. It is thought that the only way to integrate all of someone's personalities is to address the childhood traumas which brought about the splits, thus allowing the person to lead a normal life. The only real traumatic experience that I could pick up from "Jack" was his lack of a father growing up. This could explain how Tyler was created, as he is most definitely against establishment, possibly because it's how "Jack" dealt with not having the establishment of a complete family. He talked to Tyler about these issues, however, and possibly worked it out on his own, and by shooting through his cheek put the finishing touch on "killing" (or integrating) Tyler. This is all open to interpretation though, just a possibility.

He's hit the part of his brain that made him imagine Tyler.

Jack THOUGHT he killed himself, thus killing off Tyler.

I've heard it said that the only way to rid yourself of a split personality (without a doctor's treatment) is through a traumatic experience that shows you that you don't need the split personality anymore. Shooting yourself in the face may qualify.

it just may.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by penguin [/i]
[B]He's hit the part of his brain that made him imagine Tyler. [/B][/QUOTE]

thats what my friend said but if you shoot off part of your brain you...umm...you bleed to death.

but i definitely liked the book ending more......it gave me more closure.

he hits his jaw. he didn't shoot his brain. otherwise he would've died.

You don't ALWAYS die when your shot in the brain, but you will die if you get shot in the brain through your mouth.

Both claims are wrong. You can survive severe brain injury, even if the bullet enters from the bottom.

Ironically, there are even support groups for brain injury survivers. Most of them, BTW, still function perfectly in the society. Others experience memory loss, constant pain, and many more disturbing effects.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by killerqueen [/i]
[B]but i definitely liked the book ending more......it gave me more closure. [/B][/QUOTE]

Dude, I STILL don't get why people say this. Perhaps it's sacralidge to like the movie of something more than the book or something. But the movie gave me much more closure.

yeah the movie ending is much "neater" than the book. in the book it's kind of going on and on and on...it's unsettling. but that's why i like the book better.

strange how two ppl can like one thing for opposite reasons.

Yeah, i must admit that I like endings with more of a 'cymbal crash'...like I love the movie 'Contact' but the thing just won't freaking end! It must have five false endings! I don't know what got me thinking about this, but sorry everyone, for having hijacked this thread. Everyone carry on.

wait, it was hijacked? what were we talking about again?

I went off into a mini-rage about how I hate the pseudo-endings in Contact, cause you said you didn't like 'neat' endings. (Or something like that, I'm too lazy to go back and check). I hate fuzzy endings that trail off into nowhere. I can't think of any other good examples right now because I'm very sleepy, but there you have it.

You didn't hijack it. We all change subjects in threads. And people say the end of Fight Club the book gave them more closure because it explained things. It explaied what happened afterwords. People don't think they HAVE to like the book more, they just like the ending more. Same with me. I don't like Fight Club the book very much, except the ending, which I love. Fight Club the movie was much bettter to me.

Ok, good. I'm still new to this whole game and need a lot of guidance.

I like the body of the book better, but I gotta tell you, I still like the ending of the movie better. When he's up there on top of the building in the book, and everyone is telling him not to shoot himself, and he does anyway, it seems to me to be rather....cowardly. I think him shooting himself in the movie comes off much stronger.

That's just me though.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by penguin [/i]
[B]You can survive severe brain injury, even if the bullet enters from the bottom...others experience memory loss, constant pain, and many more disturbing effects. [/B][/QUOTE]

You can get different results depending on (among many other factors) the part of the brain injured. For example, after several concussions, I have diminished impulse control - meaning frontal lobe injuries. Whee!

wow, decalogue. just, wow.

Ah, what's a few brain leisions between frfrfrfrfriends?

LOL!! that's so not funny. i really shouldn't laugh at that. LOL!!!!

oh, go ahead and laugh. It feels good to be mean sometimes.

ROTFLMAO

:: pointing and laughing::

::wipes tears away from her eyes::

phew.

Mean lady.

yep.

Personally, I agree with the thought that the body of the book is better than the body of them movie, but the movie had a better ending.
Personally, I've read the book several times, seen the movie several times, and several times have read the shooting script (which differs from the final production).
I tend to think of them all as the same work, in that I often can "see" scenes from the book as well has "read" scenes that are only in the movie. It all blends together into this multimedia orgasm.
I like it all. However, one thing I liked about the movie more than the book was that there's no image of this gaping ear-to-ear smile where he's torn several inches into each cheek. (shudders).

it's weird though b/c chuck approaches the movie like it's not even his story. maybe he has to do that for psychological reasons tho. i agree that the movie blends really seamlessly with the book. sometimes i forget that the scene with lou and the scene of the car crash don't happen in the book.

of course i need to go back and read all these books again, otherwise i'm going to start talking more and more straight out of my anus.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by aheffel [/i]
[B]I like it all. However, one thing I liked about the movie more than the book was that there's no image of this gaping ear-to-ear smile where he's torn several inches into each cheek. (shudders). [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm also very happy they left out the part where Joe bites off half his tongue and shatters his teeth. After reading that passage, I always felt that Marla was a very brave woman to like a guy who looked like that and most likely had a serious speech impediment.

And yes, I totally agree with the whole book/movie seamless blending. It is not often that we are blessed with both a book and a movie that are good as a set and are also independently good too.

I don't think he missed. I think he felt that Tyler was becoming his own etiny(sp), but was still partially connected to Jack. So, Jack shot himself in the cheek, while making it look like, and thinking(to trick Tyler), that he had shot himself in the head.

Do you really believe Tyler could be tricked? I'm not sure I buy that.

And XChuck, your new avatar freaks me out.

I think Tyler could be tricked as long as Jack wanted him to be. And I'm sorry that my avatar freaks you out. It freaks me out too.

I just posted this in another thread. It may apply... I'm quoting myself again. ::shudder::

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by decalogue [/i]
[B]Good question!

I tend to think that a little "Tyler" is innate in all of us (only without the hallucination) and usually manifested at puberty, or thereabout, in the form of "teenage rebellion" - though glimpses can be seen quite early on. Most people sublimate him more or less completely by the time they are in their mid to late twenties. Tyler was "there" when Jack pissed on the Blarney stone - and possibly at a number of other unmentioned acts. As Jack assumed his adult role, that of the thirty-something-working-stiff-yuppie-cog-in-the-machine, in conflict his youthful hope/idealism/whathaveyou, his subconcious rebelled (as happens (albeit differently) to many thirty-year-old boys), thus the Blarney Stone incident. Jack's insomnia - possibly another result of this growing self-loathing - allowed "Tyler" to manifest physically, to take over for a time, and to help Jack recover his humanity.

Maybe this is why Jack was able to "kill" Tyler - at this point in the story, he no longer needs him.

My thoughts. [/B][/QUOTE]

nothing wrong with quoting yourself, as long as you've got brillian things to say (and a mysterious kick-ass avatar)

Thanks!

I think!

"I think"?

what was that supposed to mean?

Now I am saddened.

Jack wanted to get rid of Tyler and end the revolution and the insanity. and in order to do that he had to kill himself. he was so devoted towards killing Tyler that when he shot himself it was like killing Tyler

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jane s. [/i]
[B]what was that supposed to mean?[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm sorry. Is being mysterious and kickass good? Now that I think about it, iguess it is, isn't it? Yay, jane s.!

You're welcome.