I never should have listened to the people who said Unbreakable wasn't a good movie!

I just watched it and it was great. It just seemed...possible...unlike comic books. It left a lasting impression especially the suprise plot twist . M. Night Shyamalan I salute you.

I thought that it was pretty cool too.

Well, to me the one thing that ruined it was the ending. I mean, the idea of the guy who helped him through the whole thing turning out to be evil, for no good reason except "he's crazy that way", just didn't work out well at all.

Mr. Glass needed to know where his other half was, he did those horrible things to see if someone would survive it or even stop it from happening, a super human man or woman. Mr. Glass didn't realize he was the 'bad guy' until he realized that he killed all those people in the process. He helped the Unbreakable Man because Mr. Glass desperately wanted a counterpart; He felt alone and without purpose in life without one.

Well, to me the one thing that ruined it was the ending. I mean, the idea of the guy who helped him through the whole thing turning out to be evil, for no good reason except "he's crazy that way", just didn't work out well at all.

It's like in one episode of the Batman animated series where one of the bad guys [might have been Joker, I can't really remember exactly] said that it was because of Batman that the supervillains existed.

I get what it's supposed to mean, but it was still stupid.

Look at it this way: Mr. Glass and Unbreakable Man were two sides of one coin. Neither could exist without the other. Light creates shadows and all that. Mr. Glass didn't know why he existed but figured that somewhere out there was his "other half". So he created all those disasters to find his other part. Any reason they could try to come up with for why he was a villain just wouldn't work in a movie like that.

Nope, but maybe they shouldn't have bothered with making a villian like that. I mean, I'd think that he would figure out he's evil the second he even considers BLOWING UP A BUILDING, no matter WHAT the goal is. There were plenty of bad guys anyway.

Also, light creates shadows? Nope, I mean without light eveyrthing is basically just one big shadow. Shadows aren't made BY light, they are the areas where there is NO light. It's not the light's fault the shadows exist, and any method of saying "yes huh!" would just be semantics.

Also, light creates shadows? Nope, I mean without light eveyrthing is basically just one big shadow. Shadows aren't made BY light, they are the areas where there is NO light. It's not the light's fault the shadows exist, and any method of saying "yes huh!" would just be semantics.

When you point a flashlight [we'll use that as an example] at an object you create a shadow directly behind it. Any use of a lights of any kind will always create shadows. Enough science! Onto philosophy! There are three things: light, shadow, and darkness. Darkness is the absence of light, but what about shadow? Shadow is a pervesion of light, even a weakness of light. What I'm saying is that light does not create darkness, but shadow. Which are two seperate things.

Now let's equate these to good and evil. Would darkness be good or evil? The answer is neither. Darkness completely lacks good and therefore it lacks anything to measure against it. If there is nothing to measure it against can it be good or evil? It simply "IS". Once you introduce light [good], you also introduce a method whereby to measure good and evil. The light becomes twised and perverted by knowledge of evil and becomes a shadow of light.

Ugh, my brain hurts.

No, shadows and darkness ARE the same thing. Shadows are NOT a perversion of light, they are just the absence. All you did when shining the flashlight is create areas that are now full of light. The "shadow" is an area that is still exactly the same as it was before, well maybe a little more lit up because a little light likely made it back there, but it's the exact same condition. Calling that a shadow is merely human perception, it's not an actual THING like Peter Pan's shadow or Shadow Link, it's just an area that wasn't illumitated, and saying it was formed by the light is just like saying a chicken was FORMED by the clouds.

Allow me to give you an example of this sort of thing in action. Long ago, looking at Mars, some people had for a time thought that the various paths on there were canals, and were obvious signs of intelligence. They were only partly right. They WERE signs of intelligence, but the intelligence was on OUR side of the telescope.

No, shadows and darkness ARE the same thing. Shadows are NOT a perversion of light, they are just the absence. All you did when shining the flashlight is create areas that are now full of light. The "shadow" is an area that is still exactly the same as it was before, well maybe a little more lit up because a little light likely made it back there, but it's the exact same condition. Calling that a shadow is merely human perception, it's not an actual THING like Peter Pan's shadow or Shadow Link, it's just an area that wasn't illumitated, and saying it was formed by the light is just like saying a chicken was FORMED by the clouds.


Light and shadow are connected. You can't have one without the other. Go into a room at night, turn off all lights, and tell me what you see. You won't see anything. And that's what darkness is, nothingness. There's not light or shadow. BUT, once you introduce light into that enviroment you change it completely and now you have something that allows you to measure the light and shadow.

Let's say you point a flash light at a chair. You'll see a shadow behind the chair which will look similar to the chair. I made a slight mistake when I said that the shadow was a perversion of the light, actually the shadow would be a perversion of the object. That makes a bit more sense I think. The light shining on the object creates two things: The object and it's shadow. In the case of the movie, Unbreakable Man was the object and Mr. Glass was, essentially, his shadow. Two sides of one coin. The superhero and the supervillain.

It didn't create anything though. Conservation of matter/energy remember. If the shadow actually IS something, then it must be in the form of energy or matter, meaning that using a flashlight has an end result greater than the energy emitted. That is a physical impossibility. Like I said, it's only a shadow because that's what we call dark areas inside lit areas. In a completely dark room, one could easily say the entire room is in darkness. You say you see nothing, good call I suppose, though the brain does create an image for you there too, after all you do see that blackness even though it doesn't actually exist. However, you can't see a shadow either. That's also seeing nothing, only difference is the surrounding cells ARE being stimulated by light, so in that area, it's nothing but darkness, but AROUND it is light. Why would light AROUND something change the nature of the dark area? Relative comparison? It's only dark because the light makes it dark? Nope, it would be dark anyway. Remember the totally black room? Sure, if you've never seen light before, it's all the same, but that's the human side. Utter darkness is an absolute, outside human opinion. Whether some light is considered bright or dim is of course just opinion, but the fact that it IS light is also an absolute. And light can exist without shadows, just make sure nothing is blocking it, or just put up another light bulb behind anything blocking it.