bigass time plothole
-
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" -
jbunt16 — 17 years ago(November 07, 2008 03:16 PM)
You guys need to get caught up on your time travel theories. You can make small changes to the past without problems but if you make a major change it splits the timeline. Walker returned to his timeline but with the knowledge that there was now a new timeline where his wife was alive.
Of course the idiot screenwriters didn't actually think that and it's just a plothole but that's what guys like us are for, to explain plotholes in movies. -
Jiels_liken — 17 years ago(November 07, 2008 05:59 PM)
Its not a plot hole, let me see if I can explain this, he goes back to his past self to save his wife but at that point its the same person because he hadn't been affected by traveling through time yet. If your going to truly think about time travel, you have to think of time as an intellegent force you notice no matter what changed, in the "present" the time police unit was still around? thats "Time" protecting itself. The walker that had his wife saved and knew his son also went back in time, for what ever reason, the same time walker came back from saving his wife. The walker that left that timeline to change something went back to a timeline that had the change done that he did.
with me so far?
that's why you can't go into the future when you "return" you return to another universe where what ever you change was changed that keeps the universe from imploding and why we see the whole movie through one persons eyes everyone else is a totally different person from the beginning of the movie
BTW you can't use one time movie to prove or disprove another movies temporal laws. It depends on the theory behind the movie.
There are 3 main time traveling theories, I'm not going to list them here, use Google if you care but, if you don't care I doubt you've read this far. This movie goes with the multi-verse theory..
WOW I hate temporal mechanics
people are stupid -
Herreken — 16 years ago(August 20, 2009 12:25 AM)
I'm thinking that the death of the 1994 version of the senator pretty much elminates everything from happening. His 2004 version never sends those men back in time to kill the wife, the 2004 version of Van Damme never goes back to 1929 to stop his partner etc etc. But does that mean he never goes back to 1994 to stop the senator in the first place? Is this like the Grandfather paradox?
Murphtones, "Marty McFly knew about his travels through time, but his parents don't remember meeting him back in 1955 because they never time-traveled."
They don't remember meeting him because they didn't know it was him. Plus they only knew him for a week. They probably forgot what he looked like after all those years, even though he played such an important role in their lives.
DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia! -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 10:20 PM)
"You can make small changes to the past without problems but if you make a major change it splits the timeline."
You are SO wrong Obviously you have not considered the " Butterfly effect" and No i am not referring to the Movie, I am referring to the Chaos Theory a very small change in time , can lead to humungous results perfect example..open a bank account in 1880, with 10 dollars, and let the Interest accrue. then go to the bank, and withdraw your savings now tell me " you can make a small change without problems"
Another example was envisioned by the author of " Bring on the Jubilee" By ward Moore.
One of the best alternate History stories ever written. The South wins the civil war, and we see Life in the continental US in the 1950's. And before you say " But the south winning the civil war is a huge thing. READ the story. Because sometimes. a teeny weeeny change, can breed HUGE results.