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
-
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. -
MuggySphere — 13 years ago(October 08, 2012 06:34 PM)
Hang on Matt you had better tell that to the people that made Looper..
If future McComb kills his past self he vanishes. But wouldn't that also work the other way around? Killing your future self would somehow be a paradox too wouldn't it?
Your post reminded me of the movie Looper. -
snelgrov — 13 years ago(October 11, 2012 04:40 PM)
It wouldn't be a paradox because killing the older version doesn't change the younger's history in such a way as to change the younger's future. If a 25 year-old kills a 60 year-old version of himself, only his life from 60 onward is changed, not his life from 25 to 60. But, the older killing the younger is a paradox because if a 60 year-old kills himself as a 25 year-old, then the history of the 60 year-old is changed. He's now dead at 25 and therefore never lived until 60. This would have the effect of removing the older version from existance as of his 25 year-old death, whereas he originally lived until at least 60 years-old. Then we get into the Grandfather paradox, but that's for another posting
Clear as mud, right?
I
am
the white Urkel! -
mikey1969 — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 10:54 PM)
It's not just skin cells Your entire body gets regenerated eventually, new cells replacing every old cell. Even if it was the same cells, you'd pretty much have to step into your 'old' body to actually be occupying the 'same' space
" I would even go as far as to say that this film is