All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Just got back from a double feature of this and Sucker Punch. I hope Zack Snyder goes blind and is forced to retire. Anyway...
BAM! Right into the action, and off and away we go into Source Code, the first real sci-fi movie with a big release in a long time and the film Inception wishes it could have been. Here is real sci fi; here is an intelligent story; here is a movie that doesn't pander (except once, and I will, unhappily, get to that).
I will reveal nothing about the story, but it's clever, thought-provoking, twisty, and everything else you can ask for out of a sci-fi thriller. More importantly, though, it's a brilliant, brilliant script, and that's why you should all see it. The film covers a wide variety of ideas in a very tight and simple way, but more impressively, it encompasses the natural progression of a romance in a very, very unusual situation. I've never seen a romance quite like this before, and it's pulled off with aplomb.
Which is not to suggest that the script isn't also a tight suspense thriller. The movie runs parallel storylines (of a sort) that are both filled with mystery, tension, and very well-handled character dynamics. The story is very strongly character-driven, and the actors are more than up to the task in a uniformly strong cast dealing with difficult material.
I don't really know what to say about this one but that you should go watch it.
Ooh.
I agreed I would mention the one thing. There is a flaw. And it's near fatal.
SPOILERS
The last six minutes of the film are absolute bullshit. They basically invalidate all of the drama preceding for the sake of a feel-good ending. They are a relentlessly terrible sequence of scenes that I hope could only have come from the mind of some asshat producer. I would seriously advocate walking out of the movie at the point you feel satisfied with its conclusion, rather than when it actually ends.
END SPOILERS
But yeah. Absolutely see this movie. A script to note and a thought-provoking film to be highly enjoyed.
I thought it was the best movie I'd ever seen until the ending. They establish a set of rules and then turn around and break them to get a Hollywood ending. However, Duncan Jones has started off well with this and Moon
I've read the script and thought it was great. Is the ending in the film different from the script? If so, what did you think of the ending in the screenplay? I didn't mind the ending but it felt like it was trying a bit too hard to have a happy ending and wrap everything up nicely. I'd hate to think they've gone even further in an attempt to make it a'feel good' ending.
SPOILER: they break there own rules because Source Code, as they stated previously, is just a re-enactment of the past, and no matter what you do you'll come back after 8 minutes. At the end, not only does he save everyone on the train, he leaves the train and survives past 8 minutes. Now I can buy the theory that its just a alternate reality in his brain, but that doesn't work because the General gets his text message.
No, I am pretty sure that was the first line of BS among many they told him to make him stop asking questions. Later they revealed to him that he couldn't change anything in THEIR timeline but he could in an alternate one. There was also a bunch of scientific jargon I don't remember all of but it was my assumption the 8 minute constraint was all they could generate or maintain. When he died while in that alternate universe he was able to stay since he was freed from his universe or reality. Some of those rules I hear people talking about were the lies they were telling him.
Again, Possible Spoilers IDK, they kept feeding him the entire movie that he wasn't able to save anyone, and that trying was futile. Now, I guess him being "teriminated" somehow correlates with him saving everyone, but that just bugs me. Plus, if its an alternate reality, how did Sofia Vergara get the text message?
He sent it from that reality. You also have to remember he isn't really himself in that new reality, he hijacked that poor saps body. His real self in that reality is still in the box being kept alive awaiting a live run of the program.
Sorry, I should clarify. I didn't read the script separately. I'm just commenting on the script as it appeared in the finished film.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
They definitely had no idea of how the machine "actually worked" (I have to put it in quotations because I'm so enormously displeased by the ending of the film). Look how surprised Vera Farmiga was when she got the text. Look how unapologetically insistent she is, even when she's agreed to send him in, that he'll only be alive for eight minutes.
He can't have just hijacked the guy's body. That raises WAY more questions than it answers. And he definitely couldn't send an inter-dimensional text message. In my mind, the only rules that make sense are the ones that were established: source code is source code, and those people are already dead. Him living on in his own reality in the source code, I can buy. I was really hoping they'd just end with the kiss, or even end with them at the Cloud Gate. It completely makes sense that something going on only in his own reality, or in his head if you like, could last longer than eight minutes.
Otherwise it's just a story about a guy that time travels into the past to stop a disaster, and that's stupid and disappointing.
Spoilers This is what it would have to be. Two separate reality's, one that we watched most of the film under, the train blows up, they catch the bomber and his life support is terminated. The other reality would have to be where the train doesn't blow up, they catch Frost, and he lives past 8 minutes. Then, even that doesn't make much sense because Sofia Vergara is aware of both realities, because she knew Frosts name before she was told it. Unless, because it's in Colters brain, he made her aware of both realities. Also, I kinda feel like they just wrote the script and then decided to throw in the fact that he was dead to add a twist. Don't like that.
Man, and people pissed and moaned about Inception having too many holes?! It's clear from the cleverly shot credit sequence that they're going for an alternate reality conclusion but tell me, how the HELL is that possible if it's all taking place inside a mind that is hot-wired to a computer program?
This is a taut little thriller. It handled an interesting idea with the right balance of suspense and emotion. The ending will be contentious but that is to the film's advantage. Assuming the conclusion is the one most likely from what we see, it's actually a nasty message to see Sean as the only loser. That would be the main flaw of the film - it didn't give enough capital for a number of different interpretations.
The terrorist handled his work well and the film felt a little North by Northwest as well. Jeffry Wright was excellent. The deviousness and ambition above all else angle worked well for him. The article on Scriptshadow discussing the script v film differences is interesting. I'm yet to read the script but do like its inventiveness.
This kept to the spirit of the original script and I thought it turned out better. The set up for the ending was in the quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo from Rutledge.
This kept to the spirit of the original script and I thought it turned out better. The set up for the ending was in the quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo from Rutledge.
Thank you, Clorox. People, (Great Spirits) like yourself, are what I live for. I'm reading this script again before I see it on the big screen.
I've read the script and thought it was great. Is the ending in the film different from the script? If so, what did you think of the ending in the screenplay? I didn't mind the ending but it felt like it was trying a bit too hard to have a happy ending and wrap everything up nicely. I'd hate to think they've gone even further in an attempt to make it a'feel good' ending.
Cheers, Tim.
I was fortunate enough to be able to read the script before it was tinkered with. Some of what they changed is good in my opinion, and some is not.
In the script for instance, the character of Goodwin is a male. I think it was a good decision to make the character female.
The character changes they made with Christina, however, I was not happy with. However, I think they did this to add dimension to the film. The fact that they brought in Russel Peters as the comedian is EXCELLENT! Because I love Russel Peters, however: Boo to not being able to actually hear any of his good jokes at the end. Too fast and too little there.
I'll be watching Source Code again, making some comparisons, and then maybe I'll post some more.
Oh, and I need to read through this thread, which shall be fun.
This kept to the spirit of the original script and I thought it turned out better. The set up for the ending was in the quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo from Rutledge.
I missed that! Do you have any idea of roughly what he said?
I missed that! Do you have any idea of roughly what he said?
I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but one thing I remember in the movie that wasn't in the script, was the description of (I'll call it the shadow effect) where the analogy is given of:
When a light bulb is turned off, but you still see the light in your eyes for a little bit of time after...
...So this is kind of a solid "thing/idea" that they built into the movie that I don't recall in the script.
The time period "in between". In between life/death. In between the time the light is switched off/then still seeing a remnant of its effect...
In short-- a pocket of time.
Now, I don't know, but it may be that Ben Ripley knew this, but he wasn't able to quite put it down in the original script. Much like myself. Have the idea, but can't quite formulate it. Or, the many people that assisted on the script later, helped to nail the "blurriness" and bring it into focus.
I have to confess I was disappointed with this. I expected a time-bending sci-fi / thriller classic on the level of Minority Report. This is only a sniff above Deja Vu.
The villain was forgettable. A nondescript 'American patriot' that you get in endless stories. The premise - which in the trailer seemed so strong - ended up not making sense to me. Jeffrey Wright said he only had those eight minutes, yet that time early on he saw the bomb go off and then got hit by that train. So he clearly lived beyond the original Sean Fentress' death - and didn't think to mention it? How and why did Colter fall in love with Christina so quickly? She alone seemed to act differently each time - a point Colter did briefly pick up on and hints at a really free will / determinism thingy - but this was left unexplored, too.
Also, I never really got a sense that Colter was doing this again and again. Take Groundhog Day - Bill Murray is stuck in that day so long he learns to sculpt ice, play piano, flick cards - I watched a behind-the-scenes documentary where the writer said he believed Murray lived for thousands of years within that one day, which raises it to a fairy tale, legend-like level. There's that wonderful line where he shows off his card-flicking skills, Ally McDowell smiles and says, "Is this what you do with eternity?" I know the set-up is different here because there's the time constraint of the second bomb, but even so. I felt like Colter only did this about ten times. It sounds a weird thing to say, but he didn't make enough mistakes.
Lots of things were good. The performances, parts of the dialogue...it just left me disappointed, until the ending where I was VERY disappointed. End on the kiss, goddamn it! In Children of Men they don't get on the boat, towel off and have a cup - they're left floating in the water. They had a wonderful American Beauty-style ending, and they tossed it for THAT. Grr.
Overall though, I was underwhelmed. There just wasn't enough going on for me - bizarrely, given its looping, back-and-forth / 'anything is possible' premise, it felt too linear. I've heard so many good things about the script that it surprises me to say that my problems were basically all story and character-related. However, it's good to see original stuff, particularly spec stuff, get made on this type of budget with that standard of talent, and overall it WAS enjoyable. Now Jones will hopefully go off and make Mute. Now there's a sci-fi I'm waiting for.
P.S. Could someone who has the script send it to me? I'll PM you my email. Cheers.
Jeffrey Wright said he only had those eight minutes, yet that time early on he saw the bomb go off and then got hit by that train. So he clearly lived beyond the original Sean Fentress' death - and didn't think to mention it?
I wondered about this too. I assumed that that would be a relatively subtle setup to the idea that he could potentially live on longer in the source code. Then, of course, it turned up to be a setup for what I thought was a much lamer ending. The fact that he didn't mention it is definitely strange...I think at the same time that that's part of what made him so certain that he was able to save everyone. There was definitely no clue as to whether or not he consciously recognized that disconnect with the information supplied by Wright, though.
Jeffrey Wright said he only had those eight minutes, yet that time early on he saw the bomb go off and then got hit by that train. So he clearly lived beyond the original Sean Fentress' death - and didn't think to mention it? How and why did Colter fall in love with Christina so quickly? She alone seemed to act differently each time - a point Colter did briefly pick up on and hints at a really free will / determinism thingy - but this was left unexplored, too.
I think the answer to "what the source code really was", lies in the fact that Colter does live on after those eight minutes. Obviously, Rutledge was wrong.
Regarding Christina's character, you might agree with me that it's much better in the script and the relationship/love thing does not happen that way at all in the movie, which came off to me as far too (I don't know)" I'm so happy I'm going to work and sitting on this train" kinduv thing.
The showing of the idiot who built bombs and showing that bomb, as I recall, did not exist in the script either.
I think they chose to deflect away from Christina, as I had mentioned earlier, in order to add dimension to the script. Perhaps, (now I'd have to go and scrutinize) they did a breakdown of the screen time she had and it was too much and thus, they decided to change her character.
Let me know if any of you actually go and measure this one, against the other.
Almost spat my tea across my computer screen when I saw IMDb ratings put this (a good but fairly hollow movie in the grand scheme) at 7.9 and the masterpiece that is RoboCop at 7.6. Baffling.
Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure Colter does allude to this train death but is cut off and shoved back in or something to that effect. Almost certain it's brought up.
New movies just have higher ratings on IMDb, presumably because the demographic that uses the site is largely comprised of a younger audience. Inception and Dark Knight are #8 and #10 on the top 250, and I've no problem with either of those films but they're not exactly Seven Samurai or Paths of Glory.
Yeah, it's a decent point but I know that. It doesn't really explain why RoboCop is so low comparatively. It's more symptomatic of Robo being woefully underappreciated.
Most definitely fair enough Andrew, I see what you mean. Definitely an under-appreciated film.
I guess other things that might work against it in terms of an IMDb rating are the extreme violence and the lack of young characters -- unfortunately, of course, movies are a lot more concerned with appealing to all demographics nowadays. A quick glance at the user ratings for the two movies shows a much larger gap between male and female ratings for Robocop (Women 7.1, Men 7.6) than Source Code (Women 8.0, Men 7.9). The violence in Robocop was I assume a factor for the older crowd (Age 45+ gives Robocop a 7.3, its lowest rating for an age category, while they give Source Code a 7.9, higher than Age 30-44 gave it). Also, the youth factor I mentioned earlier, while not as significant as I thought, is considerable: the under-18s were 4.9% of Source Code's vote, with an average rating of 8.7, while they constituted a mere .51 of Robocop's voters with a rating of 8.2. Pays to have those excitable kids voting for you.
I think it also has to be considered in context. Robocop came out when some of the top-grossing films of the year were Good Morning, Vietnam, The Untouchables, and Lethal Weapon. Source Code comes out in a year where so far the top-grossing movies are Rango and The Green Hornet. I would imagine that tends to push the ratings on good movies up quite high; Hollywood movies that are competently made or unique are just a breath of fresh air sometimes.
Not meaning to sound like I'm arguing with you by the way, I totally agree with you. Just thought you raised an interesting question!
Oh hey man, I don't think you were being argumentative - sorry if I gave off that vibe or appeared to be doing so myself, as it wasn't my intention.
Very interesting breakdown there and I suspect that violence is the main factor, which is a shame. Don't get me wrong, I liked Source Code and thought it was largely successful - but I didn't think it had much to say and hung on an underdeveloped questioning of reality. After reading a webchat with Dunc Bowie, it appears he actually has very little to say himself. Seems a decent chap but not what he's being built up to be. On the other hand, Verhoeven said so much in RoboCop and produced something truly special with blockbuster and artistic merit. I cannot think of a film to achieve that since (although I'd imagine some might think District 9 may, but that clearly owed a large debt to Robo.)
I took a look at this one last night. It reminded me of the final shots of "Thelma & Louise". And how a rotten conclusion can take a dump all over an earnest effort.
Not that I think Source Code is in the same league as the Ridley Scott film. But closing shots can really make or break the movie for the viewer. Seems it takes a few moments to ruin what it took 90 minutes to set up.
Yes, the ending of Source Code railed against all the information given to us. We are told so many times what the rules are, only to ignore them in the end. It felt like a studio slapped on the ending as some pacifier to the masses.
My other problems with the film are the male cast. Jake Gyllenhaal is a fine actor, but he's no leading man. This, "Love and Other Drugs" and "Prince of Persia", prove it to me. For me, the guy can't carry a blockbuster or rom-com, period. Donnie Darko, sure, it's kooky. His strength seems to be in support of leading men.
And what's with Jeffrey Wright? The cane. The hair. He talks like he's got marbles in his mouth. Seriously?
If I were to go for that kind of ending, why not go the Hollywood route sooner? Perhaps clues within the code could indicate to Colter change was possible. Then, he could relay those clues to his handler, Goodwin. Goodwin denies everything, but she learns a loved one was on that train.
Now, Colter and Goodwin have something in common. Goodwin steers Colter to re-write the source code, now we've got cooperation. Goodwin has to cover her tracks, so her black Robert E. Lee boss doesn't suspect. He will literally pull the plug on Colter once the "mission" is complete.
Something like that is a lot more Hollywoody, for sure. But if you're gonna slap us in the face with that marketed ending. Why not give us some blockbuster rollercoaster suspense thrills along the way?
I can't believe this movie has a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes. Wow. A decent effort undone by a schizophrenic conclusion.
E.D.
LATEST NEWS CineVita Films is producing a short based on my new feature!
The main problems with the film - and there were several - are imo:
A) Duncan Jones. He's simply not a thriller-director. He did a fantastic job with Moon, creating a really moody atmosphere, but this is a thriller and an entirely different beast. The mood is all wrong and the pacing is too slow almost to the point that it lacks any urgency - at least compared to Ben Ripley's script.
B) Jake Gyllenhaal. As ED pointed out the man simply can't carry a movie like this. I understand that they went for a "vulnerable" lead with big puppy dog eyes to sell the whole save-me-I'm-dead-arc but in the process they forgot that this is a thriller and that you need a powerful lead, someone we want to save the day.
C) The ending (which, to be fair, was ridiculous in the script as well). In an interview with Jeff Goldsmith from Creative Screenwriting Magazine, Ben Ripley was asked about the ending. The interviewer thought it was a little fetched that, as Colter takes over Sean Fentres' body, at some point someone who actually knew Fentres would, you know, miss him or maybe even contact him, and then what? What was Ripley's reply? "I haven't really thought about that".
Another thing that bugged me about this movie is that it pretty much just rips off Deja Vu (a vastly superior movie on all levels).
Big explosion - check Patriotic terrorist - check Save the girl - check
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Never saw Deja Vu, and that's the movie everyone seems to compare this to. But, as Andrew brought up, the comparison to Robocop is valid, as they used Gyllenhaal's character(what was left of him) as a piece of organic meat to connect to a computer program. I liked the movie as decent sci-fi. But, it really, really should have ended at that freeze frame scene with Jake kissing the girl and everyone laughing. A good ending to a clever film.
Alas...the last tacked on six minutes tanked. It actually reminded me of a Star Trek TNG episode where the holodeck creates its own intelligence and becomes a life form unto itself. Didn't really make any sense on the Enterprise and it didn't work any better in Source Code.
Just saw this last night. I wanted to see it in the theater, when it was released, but didn't make it. I've been waiting for it on Netflix, and am happy to finally see it.
$32 Million budget, $123 Million WWBO...pretty nice, even though it was not seen as a big BO success here in the states. Critically praised by actual critics and fans alike for the most part. It may be a premise and story we think we've seen before, but for me, it was different enough to not only stand out, but stand above, as well.
Listen, when you go into a sci-fi flick (even more than any other genre), you have to be open for whatever's going to be thrown at you. I see many people upset with the ending, saying it doesn't make sense, it's impossible based on the logic that was set up throughout the movie, etc.
Bottom line is that the entire premise and setup is downright ridiculous, itself. So many things I could bring up (that I haven't seen brought up yet) that are way more than just leaps in logic throughout.
You're either going to buy into the sci-fi elements, or you're not. And from there, you're either going to stay with it, based on story and characters, or you're going to tune out.
For me, because they didn't really reveal the actual situation until about the half way point, I was already invested in the story and characters. It probably doesn't hurt that I'm a real sucker for Michelle Monaghan, either. I did start to grow weary of the repeating nature of the plot, but at about the 25 minute mark, I started enjoying myself, and really wondering who the bomber was and if he or she would get caught in time by our hero Jake.
I gotta admit I was way off in what I was pretty sure was going to go down. I would have bet big money Michelle was going to end up being involved in the bombing. I really did...even after Frost was revealed.
Everything took on a different feel when Jake's actual situation was revealed. Lots of stuff and different dynamics going on between the different actors and for me, it all worked.
So, then we get the ending that has everyone screaming and crying bullshit. Sorry, but for me, it totally worked and was very heartfelt even. I had totally bought into the relationship between Jake and Michelle, as well as Jake and Vera, even.
Does it make sense? Probably not...I guess it depends on how deep you dive in and discuss possible scenarios in which it can work...and there are some, too. But then again, does any of it make sense? Not really, so for me, no big deal. I am definitely not one for happy, tacked on Hollywood endings, but here, it worked and was well done
I'm actually surprised how much I enjoyed this movie. It was intriguing, well acted, nicely paced, and over all, very well done.
Time for me to chime in. I know it's discussed, but still be warned of heavy duty spoilerage:
About the ending. If it was me personally I would have chopped it right at the freeze frame moment as Goodwin decides not to pull the plug, but to reboot him and erase the memory. This way, in Steven's mind, he did save the train and stop the bomber. He's seen and expierienced death countless times (even the first time around, noticing the character's "war condition" which may also play in mental truama) More importantly, he "talked" to his father for the last time. (Note: I found out this this was a bit of an Easter egg, as his father was voiced by Scott Bakula. That was a nice touch!) That's not a real Hollywood ending, but since his mission was to identify the bad guy, and said bad guy was "caught" he still saved countless lives. If the film ended right there, it would be outstanding.
I didn't outright hate the ending we are given, with one exception. Because of the ending, the film blinks and becomes less than perfect. The insert shots of Chicago landmarks from earlier I feel are afterthoughts in an editing room to cover some butts. It doesn't work for me, and I think it violates the story. Here's why:
Steven has been in the machine for at least two months. When the train bombing happened, The Source Code project was put into effect. Steven could only go in for eight minutes. When Stevens saves the passengers at the end, and the time unfreezes after eight minutes,it should be Sean Fentress - who we seen in the mirror and on the driver's license. Instead we see Stevens. While the message was sent BEFORE the eight minutes were up, it is quite alright for Goodwin to get the message in the changed reality. But the last bit of the message "is Source Code works and for her to tell him the truth when the next 'mission' happens." is incorrect, given the premise of the movie and the ending itself by itself.
And that's what's bugging people. It's implied that his conciousness is still in Fentress. Fentress should - should have his body back. It would have been neat if Fentress has "memories" of Stevens, and, I think, playing by the rulebook. THEN have the flashes of landmarks, meaning that those are Fentress' memories, Not his.
Follow me?
So...when Stevens goes on another mission, his conciousness is transported into another person, right? Wrong! Because he's in Fentress! The only other wild possibility is that "Fentress" is in Stevens body, but that's not what Stevens says. In addition, Fentress' spirit cannot be dead since he /Stevens/ saved the train. Hence, Fentress didn't die.
But...there was that mention of being an alternate timeline, as flimsy as it is (in which case, Rutledge was also correct) and since in the "real" timeline, Rutledge stopped Goodwin from pulling the plug...
Either the ending is one big lie (the last "happy" memory of Stevens before his memory is stricken) or Ben Ripley and Duncan Jones bungled.
I would have been fine with it if it wasn't for the line of 'tell me the truth'. That one line, and the fact that Stevens is still in Fentress (did he just steal Fentress' girl in one morning!?) does cast a big cloud over the film. Still, I can't entirely condemn it. It gets people talking in debates. That is big accomplishment in today's film-land.
Darren, I hear you. I really do, and agree with you pretty much...
BUT
...remember, the Jake Gyllenhaal that we see as Fentress, is actually seen by those around him, including Michelle's character, as the same Fentress, as she saw every day on the train. When he looks at himself in the mirror, he sees the real Fentress, like everyone else sees.
OK, you with me still?
So, what about this...the 8 minutes aren't actually up yet, when they stop and look at each other in the cool silver sculpture thing. Maybe, the reason he says to her, "let's just stay here for awhile", is because it's the last few seconds he'll be in Fentress' body, and he's aware of it?
See what I'm saying?
But then again, for the whole thing to work and/or make sense, wouldn't "they" have to have been able to get Fentress' body from the wreckage, to plug him into the computer program in the first place? There wouldn't be anything left of anyone on that train, with a nuke of some kind going off and the huge, fiery explosion, involving 2 trains. How would they even know who was on the train to start with? There'd be next to nothing left.
So, IMO, you need to try to not over think things here. It would have made more sense if at the end, it was the "real" Fentress with Michelle at the sculpture, but IMO, peeps would have been confused.
How would they even know who was on the train to start with? There'd be next to nothing left.
Thoughts?
The answer is that it is not a nuclear explosion, Jeff. They also know who is on the train due to identification and computer records. While there is no guarantee the bomber's ID would survive the blast, he left it behind hoping that it would and he would be presumed dead at least long enough until he carried out his next attack.
I should be clear that the ending itself is not terrible, It just raises a lot of questions. But the better ending was to cut it off at a certain point.
It does not matter if everyone else sees Fentress or Stevens himself sees Fentress as his reflection. He's not Fentress.
And one other thing. Everyone over-analyzes. I can do it if I want :p
Quoted Text
Peeps would have ben confused
No, I disagree. It would have been playing by the rulebook that was established. (Unless, of course I'm right and the ending was a false, happy memory, although I'm glad it wasn't spelled out that way like last year's Repo Men...) The only folks it wouldn't make sense to is those types who feel that stuff like GI Joe Rise Of Cobra was a work of art.
I think one thing you're missing when it comes to the movie breaking its own rules is perspective. Characters see their world from one perspective: theirs. And while we want to instill a lot of consistency in our narratives, we also have to accept that there are going to be differences in perspective that cause contradictions. In the movie, the creator of the source code project says it works a certain way and cannot work any other way. You're taking this literally as if it cannot be any other way, but at the same time, since he designed it, he is giving us the rules AS HE UNDERSTANDS THEM. As far as he is concerned, it isn't real because he doesn't see it as working that way.
The ending comes out of an unexpected result. The rules cannot account for this since the person who gave us the rules did not know about it. The simple reasoning is that the source code deal actually does send him back in time and while it does create a paradox, he sent the woman a text from the time he was sent to, and she received it accordingly. It would seem that his personality must revert back to Fentress eventually, but it is also possible that once his character survived and the paradox began that his personality remained in the body it was transferred into. That's pretty common sci-fi fare.
I found the ending fine and a bit of a surprise since I fully expected it to end with the freeze-frame: happy yet bittersweet.
Pages: 
Author
Source Code
Logged
Locked Board