MovieChat Forums > Millennium (1989) Discussion > The movie is nonsensical because of the ...

The movie is nonsensical because of the paradox of time travel


Since the person sent from the future to the past changed that past, that person changed the future as well, at the same time negating her own existence and the existence of the people that we saw manning the time portal, as well as the portal itself. So she wouldn't have been able to be sent to the past because she didn't exist, nor does the portal.

That's why time travel is a paradox in itself.

You can drill even deeper: because of the changed past, the civilization of the future that we saw, doesn't exist, nor does the portal which would have sent the surviving people into the future. The only way these people would proceed towards the future is if they simply let time take care of it.

However, there is no people to send or to proceed towards the future, since their existence is negated by the paradox.

It's just simpler to say that time travel (towards the past) is impossible. This negates all those time-travel flicks out there, I am sorry. Yes, they are all nonsensical.

The only time-travel movie that tires to make some sense is Primer.

reply

Your problem is you are thinking in absolutes. We now know that there is nothing absolute about the universe. Even the laws are changing but they change in such a way that we think they are also absolute. We now know a lot more about how things work and even thatglimpse shows us that something as solid as metals are not solid at all and in fact is as much air as anything. If you can find the right frequency you can pass right through that solid object. Because that object is made up of waves. Waves can merge and become bigger or smaller or even even something new. Time is not relative either. If you look at time as a wave then everything changes. Even at the level of planks distance between 2 adjacent objects which make up the building blocks of the universe, time in fact becomes one with matter. Since matter itself does not exist and neither does time on that scale. So thinking that if we change time, then we change time in the future is looking at things in absolute terms. What if on one scale, time itself can become matter? It all depends where in point you are looking and you see what happens only there. A way of looking at it would be if time is a wave and you change the frequency, depending on where in the wave you listen to, the sounds would be different. So you change the frequency in the middle, the further away from that point you look, the less the changes, so you can havean almost infinite variation if you add time to a 3 dimensional wave structure. Killing your grand father aka changing the frequency at the center of the wave, would chage time at that point and closer to that point, but depending on how far you get, the less effect it would have or maybe it would affect things even more negatively but that all dpends on your perspective within that dimension. IE where you are looking. You might not exist at one point because you were never created. But there could be many you's in other points. This is why a holographic view of the universe seems like a good idea. Because things change not because of cause and effect but where you look at as well.

reply

My problem with the movie is they have the time-travel guru, the Physics Professor, explain all about paradoxes and how they can't happen. He tells us that since a paradox would erase itself from existence it simply can never exist. He tells us that you can go back in time but not change anything, only observe. He does then tell us that you can make small changes if they don't affect anything, like pulling someone out of time a second before they die.

After all that, what does the movie do? It changes the past. The professor assembles the time-lost doodad and kills himself. History has been altered exactly as he said it couldn't. This causes a "time-quake" which destroys the future but still doesn't erase the future elements which changed the past, which is what a paradox would do.

The events of the film contradict what the rules of the film told us was possible.

The ending might make more sense if they told us the people were being sent into an alternate timeline since this one was being erased.

reply

I love this forum. I'm impressed with the conversation this movie has generated. I'm not knowledgeable about the things you've discussed but I'm curious enough to pursue them. Thanks to each of you.

reply

I am sorry to tell you but you are a moron to think and say here that time travel is impossible when in fact it is scientifically possible and Astronauts and Satalights that Nasa communicate with in space, in fact even a GPS system has to take in account for 'in essence' time travel. Basically It has been a given for quite some time now that Time travel in the future is possible. Now it gets tricky going into the past but there are scientist out there that do believe it can be done. Still, unlike those who believe in the grandfather paradox, they believe that if you were to travel into the past that you would end up starting a new time line and anything you do in this timeline would not effect anything in the timeline you came from. So, like someone else mentioned, you could in this timeline kill your grandfather and still be alive. The only thing he got wrong was that he assumed for some stupid reason that by killing your grandfather in this one new timeline you started, it would then for some reason make you not ever born in every other timeline except for the one you came from. This of course is plain ridiculous and silly. The only timeline effected would be the one you are making changes too and because you are not from that time line but actually from another one, the changes don't effect you unless you do something that like blows the planet up or something like that. The point is, Time Travel is possible... Traveling backwards in time is currently not!

reply

You completely missed the plot of the movie. Try paying attention next time.

reply

Sounds like someone can't watch a movie and suspend his disbelief.

reply

The events of the film contradict what the rules of the film told us was possible


But the rules of the film weren't told to us by the professor, he was just a character giving a speech about what he thought were the rules.

Did Harry Potter contradict itself because Vernon said "There's no such thing as magic" ? No , he was just a character that didn't know the rules.

The way I took it , making a minor change in the past wouldn't destroy the future, but it did cause minor 'quakes' representing the new altered past catching up with the present. When the prof dies at the end (assumingly) this causes a quake so serious that more is destroyed in their present, hence their last ditch effort to send everyone to the unknown.

reply