bigass time plothole
-
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. -
k-mann — 16 years ago(November 15, 2009 02:42 PM)
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"
Cars aren't logically impossible. The problem mentioned in the OP is. The Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity and the Law of Excluded Middle are just as true now as they were before. And they will be just as true in the future -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 10:43 PM)
"Cars aren't logically impossible. The problem mentioned in the OP is. The Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity and the Law of Excluded Middle are just as true now as they were before. And they will be just as true in the future"
I sort of remember scientists saying that heavier-than-air travel was scientifically impossible. And yes, i realise that as technology advances, yesterday's impossibility's become today's probabilities, and tomorrow's defenites
What everyone seems to ignore is, that there are plenty of examples of reverse time travel all around us. I think someone left an old watch in an egyption tomb, but " that thing on that corpses wrist with gears and hands could Not POSSIBLY be a Swiss watch right? Which is why I keep telling people Upline.." stop worrying, No one will ever figure out we're here No one will ever believe it because their science says " it's impossible." and Anyone that tells them otherwise is either crazy.. or joking" right? -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(July 26, 2011 09:45 PM)
"I love it when some people act like they know something about something that no one in the world knows a thing about."
you forgot a phrase that turns this into a proper response
" . that no one in the world knows a thing about yetthat we know of."
Here's an interesting question. If someone say in the year 2574 As you reckon with your calendar were to make time travel practical, even if costly then from the point of view of those in this era No one knows yet butif viewed by someone that knows that futureit is known now. by that person then. and if that person came back in time, to before todaysay.. 100 years ago then your statement is totally false since..
" someone knows" The existence of time travel, makes use of the verb tenses problematic. So when the technology arrives, grammar will change ( has changed? Will have been changed??.. see what i mean? " To will have been or not to will have been, that has will have been the question") as well. -
FlyingPie — 16 years ago(June 18, 2009 06:28 PM)
I know I'm 2 years late in my reply, but that's not the movie's only big problem. For instance, the time travel cart (which the police officers sit in when they travel back in time) disappears when they go back in time and then re-appears when they come back to their own time. Secondly, the whole theory of "the same matter can't occupy the same space at the same time" and how that affected the movie doesn't make sense at all. For one, your body won't have the same matter 10 years from now because the body's cells are continually replaced as they die. Second, if you touch your younger self, the matter isn't really in the same space; you're simply placing part of your body right up next to your younger self, which is different from actually occupying the same space.
-
McFly_2015 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 11:41 PM)
I use the Y theory and I'll go by back to the future to explain it:
Up until 1985 there had been no time travel and thus the timeline is a straight line. Marty travels back in part 1 to 1955 and changes the timeline. So we now have the new timeline and the original timeline so the timeline should look like the letter Y turned 90 degrees to the right with 1955 being the point it splits.
Then in part 2 they travel to 2015, Biff steals the time machine, goes back to 1955 and changes the timeline. At this time, now there are 3 timelines; the original one without time travel, the second timeline where Marty changed 1955 and a third one where Biff travels to 1955. So now the timeline looks like a pitchfork angled 90 degrees to the right.
Doc and Marty travel back to 1955 and stop Biff from changing the timeline in 1955 destroying the third timeline and reverting back to the second timeline. So you could either say the timeline now looks like a rotated Y or consider this to be a fourth timeline (which is very similar to the second timeline except for some extra time travelling in 1955 which does not seem to change the future timeline drastically).
I wont factor in part 3 because it doesn't add to the discussion. But anyhow this is how people can change timelines. So at the end or part 1, Marty travels to the second timeline despite being from the first and being the only one with memory from the first timeline.
When Biff returns to 2015 in part 2, he goes to a continuation of the 3rd timeline (and a deleted scene indicates he does not live to 2015 in the new timeline so he promptly disappears).
The only way to return to a previous timeline is to restore it like Doc and Marty do in part 2. Example: Mr. Green goes back in time from 2009 and murders george bush Sr. as a child, presumably he returns to a different america in 2009 since 3 presidential reigns are wiped out but should be the only person who would know who George Bush Jr. was. But now Mr. blue goes back in time to 2008 and murders Mr. Green before he has the opportunity to travel back in time, now the original timeline is restored.
So in terms of timecop, no max should not return to his original timeline where his wife is dead because this event does not happen. Now whether or not he should remember the first 10 years of his childs life is up for debate. Back to the Future theory says no, but Frequency theory suggests he should remember both timelines.
check out my site:
http://www.kwrentagoalie.com/forums/index.php -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 11:01 PM)
"The only way to return to a previous timeline is to restore it like Doc and Marty do in part 2."
There is a problem though. Restoring a timeline from within the timeline is simply changing the new timeline into another branch that will simply be similar to the Old branch but can never equal the old branch.
The ONLY way to totaslly eliminate an old branch is to travel to 2015, and stop old biff, from going back in time. Only by preventing old Biff from even setting foot in 1955, can you " revert" the time line.
perfect example. the Original timeline as it is in Part 2. does Not have Old biff in it. the new timelinedoes. Therefore the new timeline is version 4. not version 2. -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 10:53 PM)
"Second, if you touch your younger self, the matter isn't really in the same space; you're simply placing part of your body right up next to your younger self, which is different from actually occupying the same space. "
That wasn't a Plot Hole though, that was Bullsh*t the writers came up with for the deus-ex-machina moment of How to deal with the bad guy.
You are right, mearly touching your past self is no different than touching someone else. even if you go back in time 1 day, and decide you wannna " beep yourself" and turn it into a pleasant experience instead of fighting words.
If BOTH sets of atoms were trying to occupy the same space at the same time, regardless of whom they belong to or how oldyou would have catastrophic consequences. But mear touching??? That can be very pleasant indeed. -
Mandy_Whitsands — 14 years ago(June 02, 2011 03:45 AM)
hey sorry if this topic has been brought up before i havent been on this meesage board before but after the film ended i was sat thinking that doesn't make any sense.
this is mainly because of jean claude van damme. He comes back from the past (where he left himself and his dying wifeafter saving them) and then he returns home and everything is hunky dory.
But if he left himself in the past then surely that version of himself would still be in existence when he returned making him come to an alternate reality where there are 2 versions of himself now he has returned e.g. like in back to the future where he returns after biff changes everything.
its probably thats meant to be overlooked and not thought into that much but just something i needed to point out.
no, when the old Van Damme returns to the time he came from, the young Van Damme stays in the past and has 10 more years to reach the time where his son comes out of the house (final scene). By that time (+10 years) the old Van Damme obviously isn't there any more, but 10 years ahead in time.
They won't ever meet again.
For the same reason you can't catch up in age with your older sister. -
hfctorch — 14 years ago(July 17, 2011 10:34 PM)
I noticed that too.. There would certainly be too Van Damme's when he returns to the present. You'd think he would he realize after 10 years after finally saving his wife she would be alive in the present, but when he gets back he is depressed and doesn't even realize till he sees her. I also love how his home was still blown to smithereens, yet when he returns to the present it's perfect. I guess we could assume it was rebuilt. But it still looks like a real old house. Also you'd think McComb would have killed him before he was born, as soon as he saw him as a threat when they first met, instead of going to his house right before he became a memember of the TEC. Also, they mentioned in the film somewhere toward the middle the only time travel is TEC and the Prototype. So if it is just in the hands of the TEC, and they're only purpose is to protect time. Why have the TEC or time travel device at all? There is a million plot holes, but I still love it.
-
Dmp2789 — 12 years ago(October 18, 2013 08:56 PM)
I thought the biggest plot hole popped up within the first few minutes. "We can't go to the future, because it hasn't happened yet."
If that's the case, if you change the past, you change the future, making the future impossible to go back to since you changed it, making it not happen yet. Yeah, fun movie, but man does this have more plot holes than Chicago has pot holes.