There is one thing in this movie that realy bugs me, that is fact they couldn't touch there past self's because it's the
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Timecop
KillerBee256 — 21 years ago(February 12, 2005 01:11 PM)
There is one thing in this movie that realy bugs me, that is fact they couldn't touch there past self's because it's the same matter, The skin you have now is not the skin you had 10 years ago because are skin cells are continently flaking off and being replace by new ones. There for after 10 years your skin is not made up of the same matter as it was in the past, it's different, and touching your past self wouldn't cause any problems.
-
glacialdrift — 20 years ago(August 08, 2005 04:42 PM)
Another thought if the same matter can't occupy the same space maybe it should just bounce off? Like how in the real world stuff can't occupy the same space as other stuff and bounces off or makes a hole :S
Other than that, the film is flawlessly plausible
I like posting in forums about movies. -
graewil — 20 years ago(August 09, 2005 02:03 AM)
Making a time travel film with no plotholes is like making an omelette without using eggs, let alone not breaking them.
Earlier in the film, the younger McComb gets his face cut and it appears on the older McComb too. Then at the end of the film young Van Damme gets shot about five times from point blank range in his kevlar covered chest, then falls off the roof of a very large house. Older VD doesn't even blink.
You can't take these things too seriously. You'll go insane. -
kayode_rk — 20 years ago(January 10, 2006 07:56 AM)
The point is, McComb's injury was leaving a scar behind on the Older version of himself. Walker's not going to feel the pain of his younger self behind shot while wearing kevlar, no less. It was ten years ago!! But a scar is a scar.
-
avortac — 12 years ago(April 14, 2013 05:45 PM)
"Making a time travel film with no plotholes is like making an omelette without using eggs, let alone not breaking them. "
Here I am, from the future! Hmm.. well, actually, just replying to an old post. But it's pretty interesting way of looking at it.
You are of course wrong. It's not like that at all.
Making a time travel film with no plotholes is like making a very complicated, difficult-to-make egg dish skillfully and with style. Not impossible, but most people only manage to make burgers or french fries and don't even aim for a higher level meal.
There are two movies that I know of, that do not have plotholes (at least relating to the time travel), as far as I remember:- The Terminator (1984)
- 12 Monkeys
Both of the movies use the predestination paradox, which is probably the easiest method for making a time travel story without resorting to plotholes. I mean, with predestination paradox, you can make everything just "fit". With any other kind of time travel, there will be a lot of problems that you have to solve, before you even start writing the story, or you will end up with plotholes.
BUT! You have to be sure that everything is 100% the SAME. Not "similar", not "identical", but 100% the same! There is one predestination paradox story that deviates from this, and thus destroys the whole story in the process, without the author ever having realized it, I suppose. There is an older man who COPIES a book (by hand!) that he got as a young lad from his older self (that he didn't recognize back then). You have to think hard, but eventually you will realize why this would destroy the whole story. The book has to be 100% the SAME, it can't be a hand-copied book. The writer did this probably to avoid the book 'aging' and thus at some point in the loop, disintegrating completely. But it kills the story, when the book is a copy of it's earlier version! IMPOSSIBLE! So even the predestination paradox is not foolproof - a fool can destroy it easily! -
I think it might be possible to have some kind of "holographic" time travel model that would allow the non-predestination kind time travel stuff without having to resort to the boring explanation of simply creating more and more timelines every time something is changed. But I don't have the brain facilities to incorporate this thought into a ready idea of any kind as of now. Maybe my future self could.. but he's not here yet - but who knows.. (kind of creepy thought that I could at any moment pop in here behind my back and surprise myself)
I wonder if anyone has ever tried 'spirit-only' model, where you can't take your physical body with you, but your spirit can travel freely .. I think "Butterfly Effect" comes close to something like that. But it's a crappy movie, about 'romance' or 'woman' again. Sigh. Why can't it ever be about something more interesting?
-
rickyp-3 — 11 years ago(January 01, 2015 02:53 PM)
Making a time travel film with no plotholes is like making an omelette without using eggs, let alone not breaking them.
I disagree entirely. Time travel in movies may rely on things not known to current science to operate (or take liberties with science) in order simply to happen, but there's no reason it ought not to follow logic, common sense and other known scientific fact where possible.
The only exception to this should be overlooking the butterfly effect for the sake of the plot, and even then it can become glaringly obvious e.g.
Back To The Future
where lightning striking the clock tower at a very specific time is essential to the main character getting "home". In real life we know that his very presence would likely prevent this, if not averting the storm altogether.
The fact is the "same matter can't occupy the same space at the same time" thing falls down at every level. Not only is it mostly not the same matter (skin cells being shed, water making up most of the body constantly being replaced, &c.) but it doesn't share the same space. It is physically impossible for them to share the same space (except at the quantum level, and then the particles of matter won't share the same quantum state i.e. Pauli exclusion principle) Two objects touching each other occupy
adjacent
space, not the same space. This is basic common sense, but the film-makers overlooked it. -
avortac — 11 years ago(March 20, 2015 06:27 PM)
[The original, somewhat exaggerated and over-the top egg-example]
"I disagree entirely. Time travel in movies may rely on things not known to current science to operate (or take liberties with science) in order simply to happen, but there's no reason it ought not to follow logic, common sense and other known scientific fact where possible.
Well, I don't know if it's wise to disagree ENTIRELY, I mean, he has a point about time travel movies having to be crafted very carefully. I agreed enough to simply alter the original proposal into comparing it into crafting a difficult-to-make egg dish that takes lots of time, precise timing, talent, and hard work, as opposed to just slapping a fried egg on a burger and calling it a meal.
No one talked about 'science' or 'current science' (how do you know what 'current science' is on other planets, by the way?), so it was an irrelevant thing to bring to the topic.
Science does not dictate reality anyway. It only misinterprets and/or denies it according to agenda-ridden, faulty and limited, narrow parameters that certainly are not fit to even describe reality, let alone dictate it.
"The only exception to this should be overlooking the butterfly effect for the sake of the plot,"
The only exception? Boy, you are strict. No other exceptions allowed?
I don't think there is any need to use such strict ultimate statements about what should or should not be done - but we can discuss as to what would be satisfying to the viewer. When the plot goes haywire just because the writers didn't realize the implications of the time travel plot device gimmick, it's obviously not satisfying ("Looper", "Timecop", "countlessothermovieslikethat"). When it's obvious that the writers have taken every implication into account, the results can be very satisfying indeed ("The Terminator (1984)", "12 Monkeys", to mention a couple).
It's funny that some people have described this mess of a movie's plot "flawless", and done so more than once. Did Damme himself visit IMDb, or what?
In any case, if you have to 'overlook an effect' of what you have created, storywise, just to make the plot work, you are not trying hard enough, and your plot will SUCK.
This is exactly why time travel movies do not have generally speaking well thought-out plots or storylines. They could, and it would certainly be enjoyable, but most of them just .. don't. Timecop is a good example as to how to sacrifice everything just for the sake of .. I don't know, entertainment, I guess?
The bottom line is: If you don't know how to write a time-travel plot/story without 'sacrificing "the butterfly effect" for the sake of the plot', it's probably not a good idea to use time travel in your story at all.
" and even then it can become glaringly obvious e.g. Back To The Future where lightning striking the clock tower at a very specific time is essential to the main character getting "home". In real life we know that his very presence would likely prevent this, if not averting the storm altogether."
Now you lost me.
HOW would Marty's knowledge affect an ENORMOUS FORCE MAJEUR that certainly wouldn't care what some teenager happens to know or not know? Choose another example, or clarify your thought, please, if you really want to make a point. Otherwise you are just babbling incoherently.
Why the heckl would Marty's presence have ANY effect on the storm? And why would it "likely prevent" the storm? WHAT?
Are you saying teenage boy's knowledge and thoughts can somehow alter the WEATHER?
You are not making any sense.
People with no sense can't really comment time travel movies with wisdom.
"It is physically impossible for them to share the same space (except at the quantum level"
It's not impossible. You just don't know how to do it. You can alter the vibration frequency, remove the 'mass property', elevate the field surrounding a mass's vibration frequency so that, for example, two human beings can occupy the same physical space. They are just in different 'dimensions', so to say, but they are technically in the same, exact location.
Think of astral world or ghosts, if the concept feels hard to understand. -
indyhu — 10 years ago(May 28, 2015 11:04 AM)
One thing we saw in the film is if you were the traveler, you were not affected by changes in the time stream. So older VD did not get those bullet wounds. Nor does he remember the last several years he has now spent with his no longer dead wife.
The question is, what happened to the VD that was there for the last several years before he returned? -
therach1025 — 20 years ago(January 08, 2006 02:31 AM)
The guy with the "bouncing off" is right. Touching something is not the same as occupying the same space. Touching means that you're close enough to something for it to have force on you. Nothing can occupy the same space with something else.
-
-
matt_shade — 13 years ago(October 08, 2012 05:26 PM)
It's not that it's the same atomic matter but that it's the 'same' object in the timeline. If a future McComb goes back in time and kills his past self he ceases to exist but if he touches him the timeline can't cope with the future-matter directly affecting the past-matter it is directly affected by. Future-McComb's face is scarred directly by past-McComb's face getting injured, it's like that but looped infinitely.
But that's just me.