Sequels on Spec
to "12 Monkeys"
I.
Kathryn Railly
II.
Brevity
III. Tempesta Tormenta
I'd like to explain how I deal with the "single, immutable timeline" time travel approach of 12 Monkeys in my sequels.
It's probably the reason the big studios have never been able to come up with their own idea for a sequel...without changing the past, how could they make an interesting or intelligent spin-off to this brilliant film?
However, in doing a lot of research I've found lots of theories and variations about the different concepts of time travel -- ie. single timeline, replacement timeline, parallel universe, etc. I've come up with a potential conundrum with the 12 Monkeys implementation, and I've tried to exploit it to provide a very heroic outcome for the good Dr. Kathryn Railly in my story.
The problem, as I see it, is that the goofy scientists in 12 Monkeys have created their own unique potential paradox. In my sequels, I allow Dr. Railly to take advantage of it, if unknowingly.
With all the debate about the different approaches to time travel, the talk is almost always about what the visitors from the future can do to their past -- affect it, or not affect it.
In 12 Monkeys, however, the scientists
have done something very naughty. Remember, these guys seem to be on a
steep learning curve in this business, and their slide rules and
computations will/may have a problem with this one.
In 1996, they left behind somebody who
very definitely knows what is about to happen -- Kathryn Railly! This is
a completely different scenario than the assorted time travelers they've
inserted or even left behind -- they were not from "that time".
It's similar to Neo, Trinity and the gang in The Matrix. In the Matrix, nobody knew what was going on. But give them a little knowledge of "reality" and suddenly they're VERY dangerous indeed.
In 12 Monkeys, and my stories, the scientists know very little about this woman in 1996, and have no record of her since then. They don't know if she died. They don't know if she survived by going underground in another city. They have no understanding of any impact she may have had on her future, their past, or their present.
And this is not because they don't care. It's because they just don't know.
Cont'd next column...
Return to www.tempesta-tormenta.com
It's what the whole "red herring" of the first film was about -- that for 9/10ths of "12 Monkeys" the blame for the pandemic was pinned on animal rights activists. That's what the scientists "thought" -- from the knowledge they had.
"Not knowing" can also mean that something significant may very well have been accomplished. That's my (and Dr. Railly's) opening, and it isn't "changing anything".
In
the sequels:
- due to their uncertainty, the scientists are worried about Railly's "foreknowledge" and what her exercise of free-will may do with it
- without doing anything to try to stop her, because that may be the most dangerous interference with the past, they decide simply to "observe her"
In my sequels, Kathryn Railly uses her free will to try to stop Peters and his pandemic, and save 5 billion lives. For the sake of 12 Monkeys fans, of course I didn't allow that to happen.
There, I let that cat out of the bag!
But to make
stories worthwhile, and to
express my view (and hope) that "free will" means something even in the
"single timeline universe", I had to come up with something else that
she could accomplish (or, at least, aid in accomplishing -- I don't
assert it's all to her credit).
It was pretty easy, as it turns out. It
just had to be something that the scientists aren't aware of, in their
time. A learned acquaintance points out I've introduced what he calls an
"uncaused cause", but as far as I'm concerned, the "cause" was the
scientists' own intervention in the past -- sloppy beggars.
There's even a parallel in "12 Monkeys" itself. It's that part where Jeffrey Goines implies that James Cole was himself the inspiration, and cause, for the apocalypse as a result of drug-induced ramblings when they were together in the mental institution years earlier.
It's not what happened, as it turns out, but it "could" have -- the original writers were themselves suggesting that the future could have inspired, through an intervention in the past, a similar paradox to that which Kathryn Railly takes advantage of in my stories.
Yes, this time travel stuff is interesting. But it's the provocative impact on us, and on our souls, and its challenge to our perception of free will, that is even more interesting.
