bigass time plothole
-
avortac — 12 years ago(April 14, 2013 05:31 PM)
It's not a plot hole.
In Back to the Future, when Marty comes back, he sets himself to return 10 minutes earlier than the time he left, so for 10 minutes (and for 10 minutes only!) there will be two Martys (or is it "Marties"?) running around in 1985. When the other Marty, however, uses the time machine and goes into the past, he no longer exists in the 1985, so the 'other' Marty can take his place (and indeed does).
The same principle applies here - Walker works for a TIME-TRAVEL agency, which means that he gets sent to the past a lot. There actually HAD to be a mission to send him back to accomplish (though curiously, no one pays much attention to him when he comes back, although with time travel, you'd think they would, because you never know what has changed, etc. and for after-mission report (or is it called 'debriefing'?), etc. No one even asks: "Well, did you accomplish the mission?"), for him to just casually waltz back from a mission into the agency.
If there hadn't been a mission, everyone would be like: "Hey! How did you get into the time machine, when none of us saw you come and leave for a mission! Besides, I just saw you in the cafeteria, how did you end up there?"
There had to have been a mission where they needed to send Walker into, and from their perspective, Walker simply returned back from that mission, and everything functions as normal.
So, the sequence of events:- Walker goes on a mission - WOOSH! - exits from the timeline.
- Walker comes back from a mission - into a timeline where the previous version of him just exited because he went on a mission, and now HE is the one returning.
Though I have my own questions about a lot of things - you have to be very careful as not to harm anything or change events, but Damme sees no problem in beating people up violently and brutally, and talking about TVs and future celebrities in the presence of past locals. The 'villain' guy, the ex-partner even says that he is not harming anyone - and he makes a good point, because Damme certainly harms people and that's supposedly ok?
But does Walker REMEMBER now his own son? How is his memory? Time-travel movies never really go into a great detail and depth into the whole "memory" thing, although that's a key issue in all time travel stuff. Who remembers what and why, and if a memory changes, how does it happen - gradually, instantaneously or what, and why that way?
I mean, it must be SURREAL to suddenly come 'home' to a building that you have not lived in for 10 years, and to be greeted by a kid that you have never seen, but you suddenly (in a second or so) develop "fatherly feelings" for.
So he inseminated a kid in a session of 'fun inbetween sheets' ten years ago, and that's grounds for hugging a 10-year old kid like it's your long lost son (which, in a way, he is)?
Wouldn't the kid be just like a stranger whom you don't necessarily instantly want to touch so intimately, meeting him actually for the first time? Especially considering the slightly creepy pedo angle.
And does Walker really want to be shocked about how much women can age in 10 years? Sure, some women don't age that badly (Walker's wife looks relatively good here, although she was prettier in Ferris Bueller's Day Off), but some certainly do.
And because you have always seen her ONLY up until the 'younger' version age, now, for the rest of your life, you will ONLY see her older (and aging) version.. wouldn't that be a psychological-emotional shock, too?
Only the MEMORIES could ease the shock, but .. does he have them? Oh well.
It's a pretty harmless flick anyway, not to be taken seriously.
Not a very good film in almost any account - the effects are ugly (even for their time, although time doesn't really alter aesthetics, only what people are 'used to'), the plot is awful, predictable, unimaginative and typical, misandristic, childish, with injected romance and "the american dream", where a policeman can afford to live in a HUGE mansion near a beautiful lake and a forest (although the rest of us will never be able to live like that).
I'd like to call it a 'fun flick', but it's not really all that fun. The interesting beginning is actually the best part of the whole movie, and the actor who threatens the confederation men has more charisma than most actors in the film.
The rest of the movie follows a typical movie rail with mindless action, the expected events, the expected plot developments, and the expected stupidity.
I mean, why would a guy who works in a TIME TRAVEL AGENCY wonder about someone who returns from a mission remembering things differently than he does? Wouldn't that be the CORE of everyone's training there? Wouldn't.. agh, I can't do this, it's just not worth it. Not for this film.
There would be tons to dig through and ask and wonder and question, but .. I am too tired and there are more worthy movies.
The movie has it's moments, and it can be slightly fun here and there, but mostly, it's pretty much just a waste of time.
-
jscott1000 — 18 years ago(November 21, 2007 10:28 PM)
You cannot solve a reverse time travel paradoxit's not the writer's faultit simply can't be done because as far as our science can explain reverse time travel is impossible.
If it were possible, I expect all sorts of odd things would be happening like your best friend suddenly vanishing along with all your memories of him or her. The fact that these things don't happen al the time is further evidence that reverse time travel is impossible. -
digitalboy72 — 17 years ago(July 17, 2008 01:04 PM)
Nevermind what the OP said (as big of a problem as that is), the big problem for me was Walker being able to return to the presant at all! It's stated early on the one cannot visit the future because it has not been written yet, well once Walker visits the past he shouldn't be able to return to his point of origin because it's in the future for him now.
-
polsixe — 17 years ago(August 24, 2008 05:43 PM)
Pushing the red button on his time travel remote would have to send him somewhere, it would be a auto "return" button. He's not going to the future because he is from 2004 and only going forward to return. He did that regularly as a timecop, going back and forth.
But like the other guy writes, movie writers have free imagination with time travel, there are no real rules just some loosely accepted conventions. Plot wise this should have been like the original HG Wells story where the wife could not be saved. -
troy_n_h — 16 years ago(May 03, 2009 05:19 PM)
If any of this was possible, I would think that after fixing whatever had to be fixed, this version of yourself that fixed stuff would either
just cease to exist (instantaneously)
your mind would be (instantaneously) transported into the body of the new version of you in the new version of your "present" -
hfctorch — 14 years ago(July 17, 2011 10:49 PM)
I totally disagree. I think you'd be from an alternate timeline. There would be 2 of you. I think you can go back in time and kill your own grandfather as a child, and return to the present and still exist, you are just from a different timeline(dimension). Where no one at all would know you. (Think the movie, "It's a Wonderful Life"). I am fascinated with time travel and study quantum phsysics. Marty McFly in real life wouldn't have vanished like he was starting to playing his guitar, he would just be stuck in 1955 as Calvin Klein forever if his parents never got together. If you like science fiction or time travel which I assume you do, I highly recommend the movie Primer. The best depiction of time travel there is, without any flaws. Of course this is all my opinion, but a strong one at that.
-
avortac — 12 years ago(April 14, 2013 03:04 PM)
" Marty McFly in real life wouldn't have vanished like he was starting to playing his guitar, he would just be stuck in 1955 as Calvin Klein forever if his parents never got together. "
Why would he be stuck in 1955? They had means to send him back to 1985, and him vanishing was the only reason for him trying to get his parents to get together. If they hadn't got together, AND he wouldn't have vanished as a consequence, he could still have traveled back to 1985. Why would you think he couldn't have? The DeLorean was ready to go.
What would have been the reason why he suddenly couldn't have used the DeLorean, like he did in the movie? Remember, the only reason for him to get his parents to get together was him vanishing. Why couldn't he have returned to AT LEAST his own timeline of 1985? Or even the other timeline, where Marty McFly doesn't exist? And which do you think he would have returned to, if you can accept that he would have been able to (I still can't understand your reasoning as to why he wouldn't have been able to - the parents had NOTHING to do with whether he could TRAVEL - that was a separate problem, having to do with producing 1.21 Gigawatts (or 'Jigowatts'?) of electricity)
"I highly recommend the movie Primer. The best depiction of time travel there is, without any flaws."
Ah, never mind explaining, if THAT is what you think. Now I see the problem..
That has got to be the WORST time travel movie I have ever seen, and among the top 10 worst movies I have ever seen (would be 1, if I hadn't seen some -really- stomach-turning atrocities) - and it's definitely FLAWED as a movie and as pretty much anything and everything. It fails in EVERY level possible.
The time travel isn't really 'depicted' very well in that piece of sht - I can't believe ANYONE would recommend that trash, or even elevate it into "movie" status. I have seen clueless-amateur home videos that have been better.
If you REALLY want to see a 'flawless' time travel movie - watch one of the "predestination paradox" movies, that are done properly, like 'The Terminator' (1984) (don't confuse this with any other movie with a similar name, like "T2" or other crap that completely destroy the well-built predestination paradox-type time travel experience this movie offers the viewer) or '12 Monkeys'.
THOSE are movies where time travel is depicted 'flawlessly', as far as movies go. Forget 'primer', it is an awful mess that makes no sense and which disregards pretty much -every- filmmaking rule and applies a lot of 'filmmaking no-no's'. And it's not even entertaining. -
k-mann — 16 years ago(November 15, 2009 02:34 PM)
You cannot solve a reverse time travel paradoxit's not the writer's faultit simply can't be done because as far as our science can explain reverse time travel is impossible.
If it were possible, I expect all sorts of odd things would be happening like your best friend suddenly vanishing along with all your memories of him or her. The fact that these things don't happen al the time is further evidence that reverse time travel is impossible.
How can you know that this doesn't happen all the time? If your best friend suddenly vanished along with all your memories of him or her, you wouldn't know that he or she had vansihed, or even existed
-
bonjovirocker — 16 years ago(February 25, 2010 06:54 PM)
this idea was the whole basis of the pilot episode of the remake of the 60s tv show The Time Tunnel (2002), where people, places, events just disappear from existence but sometimes there are vague recollections/memories of these things in the backs of peoples minds, similar to a feeling of Deja Vu.
The pilot episode wasn't too bad for a remake, but sadly the ratings at the time disagreed and it never got past the pilot -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 10:08 PM)
"The fact that these things don't happen al the time is further evidence that reverse time travel is impossible. "
Or we are very careful to make sure we clean up our messes. Van Damme and this movie, do not In any way, shape or form, describe how reverse time travel would really work. There are two types of time change.
One where there is ONLY one Universe and any change that you could potentially make, has already been made, or is impossible to make. This movie does Not describe that one.
There is also the type where any place you could conceivably change the past branches of an alternate universe. The problem with THIS is, as has been stated by the OP, when Van Damme reaches the "present" he reaches a present which is a future to his past self where History has been changed. a History where he may not have gone back in time, or may have gone back to a different time. So there will more than likely be a doubling. The ONLY way a doubling is avoided is if the future self of the new past Van damme, becomes a time cop, and goes back to the past to the exact moment he left for the exact same reason, and that vam damme is the exact same person as " our Van damme. And that is impossible
So this time travel needs to be seen exactly like "Back to the Future" good enough to fool those that do not think about Time travel regularly.
I have to stop and recommend an awesome Book" The man who folded himself" by David Gerrold. I think he already wrote it, wait is it 2011.. or 1911? ahh Internet was never mind. Ya he wrote it.
There are also two short stories by Robert heinlein "All you zombies" and " By His Bootstraps". Both dealing with Time Travel but with different themes. One deals with a strange version of the Grandfather paradox. And the other with well, I leave you to that one for you to figure out on your own it's less of a " who done it" and More of a " when was it done?" -
corneileous — 18 years ago(February 14, 2008 06:42 PM)
Well, look at it this way:
1.) Untill someone figures out if time travel is possible.
2.) What you can and cant do when you travel through time.
3.) What kind of chain reactions occur when you change something in the past.
Untill we can answer all those questions, just let the f u c kin' movie makers do what they want with their own interpretation of time travel, please?
I love it when some people act like they know something about something that no one in the world knows a thing about. -
marcusd25 — 18 years ago(March 12, 2008 11:04 AM)
A very intelligent response. Kudos.
You are absolutely right. Until the technology is there, no one can predict what will happen. It's no different than someone in the 1500's hearing that one day people wouldn't need horses or other animals because everyone would be getting from place to place on a "cart mounted on four circular things that is also capable of propelling itself forward and backwards at a high rate of speed for miles on end, without resting, simply be replenishing the readliy available liquid that makes it capable of the propulsion"
Nobody questions cars now. No one will question time travel, once it is actually possible. -
corneileous — 18 years ago(March 12, 2008 02:08 PM)
I agree. Alot of what is interpreted is pretty intellegent, but if youve ever seen any of the Terminater movies or the Back to the Future movies, alot os similar but each movie has its own interpretations of what you can and cant do when it somes to time travel.
"I come her to chew bubble gum and kick ass.and Im all out of bubble gum.
"They Live"