Edge of Tomorrow / Live Die Repeat - Peyton Middle Name Scene Doesn't Make Sense - Thoughts?

Submitted by LiberLilith t3_z21gwa in movies

Posted here as the sub for this film only has 23 members and isn't very active. If there is a better place for it, please let me know and I'll post it there.

I am a huge fan of this film! I have watched it at least 50 times. It's almost 10/10 perfection for me, apart from this particular scene - I just can't make sense of it!

It's the one where he tells her her middle name is Peyton and discusses how she lost her brother in the mall:

https://youtu.be/cRm4hWdh4J8?t=40

What is the point in him blatantly lying to her about stuff she knows isn't the truth?

I appreciate that the intention is to throw her off the fact he probably knows all this already and has done this multiple times before, but why make up stuff she will instantly know she didn't say? Especially a name like Peyton, which is very much an American name and not something a UK resident would be called. (*It's later revealed in the farmhouse, her middle name is Rose.)

He then tells her "you find your brother in the arcade, by the way" - why does he tell her this? She knows her past, it's not going to magically change at any time. If it's something she doesn't remember, then she would have never told him the story anyway.

Makes no sense, unless I'm missing something?

And if it is his intention to mislead her, why does he then make a schoolboy error a few hours (in their time, not film running time) later by putting 3 sugars in her coffee at the farmhouse? That's a really obvious way to show her you've been there before and know her very well. All that Peyton middle name subterfuge, then seems a total waste of time and a ham-fisted way of misleading her.

That's the only scene that doesn't make sense to me - everything else, even the loop at the end makes perfect sense!

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AgentElman t1_ixed9t4 wrote

Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."

He is getting information using Cunningham's law. Asking is not as good at getting information as telling a lie and having her correct it.

Since he is in a time loop it doesn't matter if it makes her mad at him in that time loop. He just needs the information for future time loops.

10

LiberLilith OP t1_ixeevgj wrote

Ah, that's a very good point and something I hadn't considered. What you've said actually does make sense within the scene - throw out enough wrong answers and eventually she'll correct him.

Many thanks for the input, I will try to keep this in mind on my next re-watch!

0

riegspsych325 t1_ixe04dp wrote

I just figured he was trying to figure out a way to get her to talk more and open up a bit. At some point (and after several loops), he must’ve figured out she was just making some things up to appease him. But he still digs around and gets an occasional nugget of truth and keeps trying to get more

4

LiberLilith OP t1_ixe467m wrote

If he wanted to get her to open up more, I'm not sure how lying to her about stuff she would definitely know, is the right way to do that.

She does say in that scene "maybe I just made it all up just to keep you quiet" - which is something we'll never know for sure. In the scene, it certainly comes across as though he is the one making things up to see her reaction.

−7

PrecisionHat t1_ixe4hvl wrote

He is just probing and showing her that she has, in fact, already told him some of her past.

The three sugars thing is just an honest mistake, I think.

4

LiberLilith OP t1_ixe5utu wrote

>He is just probing and showing her that she has, in fact, already told him some of her past.

Then why not tell her her actual past and then she'll know that she trusted him enough to open up - then she can just carry on in conversation, knowing she trusted him enough in another loop.

>The three sugars thing is just an honest mistake, I think.

Agreed - but it makes the previous scene a bit redundant.

−2

PrecisionHat t1_ixehj13 wrote

I think the arcade thing was real but the Peyton thing was just him being playful, because they both know it isn't true.

The sugar scene is just to push forward the plot point where she realizes he's been stalling in that barn or whatever it is.

3

LiberLilith OP t1_ixelxwz wrote

>I think the arcade thing was real but the Peyton thing was just him being playful, because they both know it isn't true.

Yeah, I can see that. I guess I've always viewed it from a slightly different angle, where misdirection is his motivation.

>The sugar scene is just to push forward the plot point where she realizes he's been stalling in that barn or whatever it is

I have no problem with it on its own, it was more to do with it immediately following the whole misdirection scene with the middle name conversation. I can now see there's a different intention in that dialogue, so the following scenes flow better.

1

PrecisionHat t1_ixesz9t wrote

If you really stop and think about it, the whole idea of her being so reticent to share her past or get to know Cage is kind of nonsensical. I get that she is trying to spare him pain, but it's not like she is going to remember and he can't help but feel something for her no matter how little she chooses to share.

3

LiberLilith OP t1_ixeu797 wrote

Yes, that's a tough one. I think it's more empathy from her side, given that she once fell in love with Hendrix (or at least that's implied). I guess she wants to save him from that pain, especially as she'll be the one experiencing a stranger falling in love with her. She can only ever know him for a matter of hours or days, whereas Cage has known her (or at least been around her) for many possible lifetimes.

2

neoblackdragon t1_ixe6wpm wrote

You're looking for a correct answer like A must lead to be.

All that matters is he thinks this information may reveal truth.
He's trying to get her to talk and express herself. Maybe it's all lies whatever she says but it says plenty if that's what she makes up. Maybe just maybe, she may see it as pointless to keep lying.

​

Again it doesn't matter if that will be the case, as long as he thinks it could be.

Additionally it clues us in to the idea that while this is the first time we are seeing this scene, who knows how many times he's done this portion of the loop. This man may have spent months or years on this same trip.

1

LiberLilith OP t1_ixe8e8k wrote

I guess I can go with the whole small talk business to get her to open up more, but why not use some actual information he's obtained from previous loops? He mentions Hendrix and she immediately starts asking how does he know that - why not use more of those snippets to show her she opened up to him in previous loops? That's an even better way to show he's done this all before.

The scene feels a bit like filler to me (a cardinal sin in screenwriting), and it stands out in what was otherwise a very tightly written script - everything else said and done has a purpose and a reason, but this scene feels slightly out of place. If the scene's purpose is to show how many loops he's done or how he's fishing for information, I think it could have been done in a better way, without the made up middle name and lost brother story.

1

DrRexMorman t1_ixe1bbt wrote

A lot of their back and forth feels like an effort to distract us from the actors’ age difference.

(Imagine a version of this film where Cruise’s character sees Blunt’s character as a surrogate for his own child instead of a sex object. It could have worked)

−6

LiberLilith OP t1_ixe5c83 wrote

She was 31 at the time of filming and he was 52 - that's not an incredible age gap when you're over 30. I've no doubt that in the film, Cage's age was probably around 40 to mid 40s, making the age gap even less of an issue.

When you look younger than your age, as Cruise does in his 50s and 60s - he can get away with playing younger characters in their mid 40s without it seeming too far fetched.

I also don't see the fascination with age gap relationships, if they're 2 consenting adults in a loving and non-abusive or manipulative relationship, then that's all that matters.

I don't see how this has any relevance to the scene in question.

4

DrRexMorman t1_ixe7jre wrote

> fascination

It isn’t fascinating.

It’s predictable, fawning, and a little gross.

>I don’t see

I know.

0

LiberLilith OP t1_ixe9ulu wrote

I can only suggest you go and preach elsewhere.

I have no interest in someone's opinion who cannot understand that people of all (consenting) ages fall in love and have relationships. I'm not suggesting every age-gap relationship is the best in the world, but to immediately jump to the conclusion that every relationship of this type is predatory, abusive, and manipulative, it really shows your own character, more than it does the people in the relationship.

If it's a little gross to you, then that's fine, but to other people it's not an issue - they see the person, their personality, their humour, their passions, their individuality - they don't check their driver's licence for their age and then decide if it's appropriate to speak to the person.

3