Big errors in this movie
-
FlyingPie — 16 years ago(June 19, 2009 12:50 PM)
the guy in the beginningsays that time travel to the future is impossible because "the future hasn't happened yet." Well, then, how do the time travelers get back to their own time?
That's true, that's another problem.
As for changing the past, I'd think that something as simple as breathing could potentially change the past, since breathing changes the content of the atmosphere (although by a relatively tiny amount). Also, walking around would track dirt & dust around, moving it from its original location. Or, simply being there could change the past - Quantum fluctuations are unpredictable, and simply traveling to the past could affect other matter at the subatomic level and randomly make them behave differently than they would have in the normal time line.
Maybe that's too much thinking for this movie though.
-
Spifflock_Holmes — 16 years ago(June 20, 2009 07:55 AM)
As for changing the past, I'd think that something as simple as breathing could potentially change the past . . .
Yep. In fact, as you say, on the time travel premise of this film, just
being
there is enough to change the past and not only because of their effects on anything else; their presence itself is a change. This movie pretty clearly isn't based on the premise that whatever the time travelers do turns out to be part of what already happened.The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
-
rude41 — 16 years ago(September 25, 2009 01:08 PM)
As far as time travel to the future being impossible. That is true. But they were going into the past. Since they're from the future, they can get back.
I suppose it's a point of origin question. If you're in the present and want to travel into the future you can't do it because like you say, it hasn't happened yet.
But if you travel back and change something, you CAN do it because you're FROM the future.
From their perspective, it's traveling in the past and then going back to the future.
If that makes sense.
Either way, the movie is fun to watch. -
McFly_2015 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 11:20 PM)
I figured that the car's contents all get sent back to the past but the car itself stays in the present does it not?
And yes the 'you cant travel into the future' is kind of flawed. What happens if 2004 grabs any civillian from the past and brings them to his present? Then they have just travelled into the future.
check out my site:
http://www.kwrentagoalie.com/forums/index.php -
Ali_lee1 — 16 years ago(February 19, 2010 05:47 PM)
What about the huge fact that at the end of the movie in the "past" walkers house was completely destroyed by the C4yet when he returned to his future it was there standing like nothing had ever happened? have to say regardless of some of the ridiculous flaws in the plot the movie was fun and a big part of me just thinks forget all the science and just enjoy it.
-
Spifflock_Holmes — 16 years ago(February 20, 2010 06:39 AM)
What about the huge fact that at the end of the movie in the "past" walkers house was completely destroyed by the C4yet when he returned to his future it was there standing like nothing had ever happened?
Actually that part's okay; destroying young McComb means that in the new, altered timeline he's no longer around to go back and destroy the house. So even though we see the house destroyed in the "previous" version of the timeline, it now
is
true that "nothing ever happened."
What
is
a little strange is that the house is still there in the version of the future in which Walker's wife is dead, because in that timeline the house
was
destroyed. I guess we have to assume Walker had it rebuilt.The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
-
McFly_2015 — 16 years ago(February 21, 2010 10:03 AM)
Spifflock are you sure about that? I thought that Walker lived in an apartment in 2004? But I want to know where he got the tape of him and Melissa? I'd assume its contents were destroyed as well.
check out my site:
http://www.kwrentagoalie.com/forums/index.php -
Spifflock_Holmes — 16 years ago(February 21, 2010 04:04 PM)
Spifflock are you sure about that? I thought that Walker lived in an apartment in 2004?
Hmm, I'm pretty sure we see him arrive at the house. But I may be mistaken; I haven't watched it for a while.
But I want to know where he got the tape of him and Melissa? I'd assume its contents were destroyed as well.
Heh, good point I hadn't thought of that. But perhaps he had it somewhere else (his office? his car?) and for that very reason it's the only one he has left.The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
-
Spifflock_Holmes — 15 years ago(November 17, 2010 05:12 PM)
But I may be mistaken; I haven't watched it for a while.
And sure enough, mistaken is exactly what I was, as I learned last night upon rewatching the movie. It's an apartment, not the house. Oops.Lazy + smart = efficient.
-
Mandy_Whitsands — 14 years ago(June 02, 2011 03:09 AM)
Actually that part's okay; destroying young McComb means that in the new, altered timeline he's no longer around to go back and destroy the house. So even though we see the house destroyed in the "previous" version of the timeline, it now is true that "nothing ever happened."
wrong. The house is destroyed TWICE. Once in a timeline that Van Damme tries to rectify and once in the final (unrectified) timeline in which Van Damme has a son. So unless the house isn't rebuilt, it shouldn't be standing there when his son comes out of the house in the final scene. -
avortac — 12 years ago(April 14, 2013 03:11 PM)
"From their perspective, it's traveling in the past and then going back to the future. "
Hm, I just realized I am responding to a message written four years ago in the past, so in a way, I am four years in your future (Though not the version of you that can read this reply, but the one that wrote the original text that I am replying to)!
Anyways, I think you made a slight error. I agree with your explanation, but I think you should have said:
"From their perspective, it's traveling into the past and then returning back to the present".
I mean, if our 'future' is their 'present', they can travel to our 'present', which is their 'past', as much as they want and change as much as they want, and still return to our 'future', because it's their 'present'. It's not that complicated. -
avortac — 11 years ago(April 16, 2014 11:13 PM)
"As far as time travel to the future being impossible. That is true. But they were going into the past. Since they're from the future, they can get back."
Exactly.
Because it's ALREADY HAPPENED to them, it's THEIR PRESENT that they are returning to, they are -not- returning to future. Future has not happened yet, but the present has.
Though this still raises the question, why couldn't some other people from the past return to the present (which is their future), now that it has happened (though how do you 'wait' in the 'present' for the 'future' to happen, so that you can travel to the 'present' (that used to be the 'future') anyway?)..
In other words, this movie really doesn't deserve the time and effort required to wrap one's head around how it's supposed to work, especially because the writers clearly never accomplished such a feat - wrapping their heads around the whole premise, that is.
It's easy to make time travel movies, when you don't think.. -
cmlegend — 15 years ago(May 18, 2010 06:24 PM)
Another one is when at the end Walker comes back to the future and doesn't understand what changed. I mean when young McComb gets a kick in the face, the future McComb gets a scar so when young Walker finally defeats McComb at the end, future Walker should know exactly what happened in the future right?
"Thats a pickle no doubt about it" -
sagerbj — 15 years ago(June 30, 2010 08:07 AM)
that has always bothered me. the problem is, the old walker should have died in that explosion too, because when he returns there will be 2 versions of him. the old him, which experienced the timeline of the movie, and the new him which experienced the new timeline. now there's 2 walkers walking around in 2004.
-
hutsman — 15 years ago(July 18, 2010 09:24 PM)
I don't know if it's ever been mentioned before, but something that occurred to me had to do with 2004 McComb killing his former business partner in 1994. Wouldn't 1994 McComb be a prime suspect in Jack Parker's death? There were probably witnesses who could place him at the plant around the time of the murder, plus they were arguing and some people most likely knew they were having disagreements about the future of the company.
It would have been a kick in the pants for 2004 McComb to return to his time and find himself in prison for Jack Parker's murder! -
frankduxvandamme — 15 years ago(August 01, 2010 01:08 PM)
another big error is why TEC agents go back in time wearing their futuristic outfits that say TEC on them and yet traveling back in time with intent to alter the future is punishable by death. so shouldn't they try to hide their presence in the past so as not to alter the future by letting people know such an organization exists?
-
jconn426 — 15 years ago(October 06, 2010 07:52 PM)
I agree, they should have had clothing from different eras available for TEC agents to wear. (If only to show Jean-Claude attempting to balance a 1920's fedora on his mullet.)
It reminds me of the circa 1970 TV show "UFO". They had an organization named "SHADO" secretly protecting Earth from alien invaders. For no possible real-world reason, everyone at SHADO's underground headquarters wore distinctive uniforms with the SHADO logo on them, including the security teams who ventured outside where anyone could see them.