Big errors in this movie
-
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. -
jconn426 — 15 years ago(October 06, 2010 08:24 PM)
Nopers. Like most time travel stories, TIME COP keeps things coherent for the audience by allowing Jean-Claude to remember only one version of events, presumably the first version, and then having him (and us) learn what has changed from the gang back in the control room. This plays merry hell with the plot, though, since the only one who can remember the original timeline is the TEC agent at the center of the change.
Since TEC's job is to track illegal time travel activity and then send someone back to arrest and retrieve the criminal, let's explore the following possibility:
1.) I go back in time to 1994 and tell my young self to stop contributing to my 401k and buy gold instead.
2.) In 2004 the energy signature of my time machine is detected. Fair enough.
3.) In 1994 my 2004 self is caught and taken back to 2004.
Now, what happens if that goes a little differently?
3.) The TEC agent kicks my 1994 self in the face when he attempts to grab and use the TEC agent's gun.
4.) I go blind.
5.) I never time travel back to 1994 to tell myself to buy gold.
There, the whole reason for Jean-Claude to be in 1994 has disappeared. How does he explain his arrival back in 2004 when he had no reason to go back to 1994?????? -
jconn426 — 15 years ago(January 07, 2011 09:31 AM)
As I believe someone else already pointed out, the movie should have immediately shifted back to 2004 once McComb was destroyed. He was the one who initiated this whole chain of events starting in the year 2004. If he mysteriously disappeared in 1994 (as Van Damme's boss points out), then no one would have hired or blackmailed anyone to go back in time from 2004 to steal money or kill Van Damme '94, and therefore Van Damme 2004, the hired guns, and the bomb shouldn't be there after McComb goes "poof".
-
horrorgasm — 15 years ago(February 14, 2011 01:26 AM)
there's also the fun paradoxes like if his wife hadn't been killed by time altering designed to stop Walker from interfering, Walker probably never would never have interfered in the first place and really McComb should have just won immediately without anyone ever knowing, because angry wifeless interfering Walker should never have existed to begin with.
or if McComb only dies in 1994 because of the influence and "space sharing" of his 2004 selfthen how can he live until 2004 to influence and kill himself in 1994? (in fact if everything was erased who called 1994 McComb and told him to come over to Walker's house?) so then wouldn't he either just suddenly be alive again? or would reality just explode because of the sheer lack of sense? who knows -
solitaire40 — 12 years ago(September 09, 2013 03:06 AM)
Yes I was thinking the same thing. When McComb goes poof I kept waiting for the bomb to just disappear along with the bad guys. His wife should also not have a bullet wound. But the house explodes anyway and then reappears with the same crappy paint job in 2004 at the end.
-
sanddragon939 — 11 years ago(April 19, 2014 10:33 PM)
There are clearly inconsistencies in how time travel is supposed to work in this movie. Apparently, changing the past doesn't affect the time-traveler from the future(which is why Max always remembers the original history), and yet, when younger McComb gets hit, the older McComb instantly gets a scar.
Its also unclear if altering history such that the time-traveler never went back undoes all his changes to the past or not.
For instance, consider the ending. So, because Aaron McComb 'disappeared' ten years ago, no one heard of him as a Presidential candidate. But we also see that name 'Parker Datalink' when Max returns. But technically, McComb killed Parker BEFORE the events in the house when Max killed him and his younger self. So shouldn't Parker have still been dead? Unless preventing McComb from time-traveling erases all his incursions into the pastin which case, why does Max remember what happened?
In any case, here's a nice series of articles analyzing the time-travel issues with this movie. Its still a work in progress-
http://www.mjyoung.net/time/examiner.html#timecop