Why could't Alex figure out on his own why is is impossible to change the past?
The explanation is clear to (almost) everyone who sees the movie, while no-one who sees the movie is nearly smart enough to invent a time machine...
The so-called explanation is a disgrace, and so was the movie. It was a mix between The Time Machine, The First Men in the Moon and, for some reason, Final Destination. Except for the time travelling sequence, which was amazing.
He does change the past, again and again. The only thing the different versions have in common is that his girlfriend dies each time. Which makes no sense at all. The conlcusion; the only thing written in stone, is how long a human is going to live. Other than that, everything is possible. Like the whole reality was there just for us. And what makes a person's death so damn special? That's never explained. Neither is the fact that each different death will in the long run have a different outcome, changing the history and causing people who would otherwise be born, to not be born at all, and vice versa. Unless there are some hidden laws of nature that makes sure about that too.
In the real world, the laws of nature are dealing with atoms, molecules and photons etc. In moves like this, they are restriced to human lives on a personal level. Something that makes it more fantasy than science fiction.
If I should guess, I would say that H.G. Wells himself would not have been happy with how the movie turned out at all.
But at least it was not as horrible as A Sound of Thunder.
I think you missed the point. For him, only Emma's death was written in stone. The rest, be it in the past or the future, was his doing.
- You are the inescapable result of your tragedy
Didn't matter what he did, his tragedy defined him.
- just as I am the inescapable result of you
And because of what he did, he defined the world in which he found himself.
Oh, as for the OPs question, I think Alex couldn't figure it out because his motivations were defined by it. Couldn't see the woods through the trees, so to speak. He accepted it when he heard it, he knew it logically, but he didn't want to deal with it emotionally in case he lost purpose.
Even though Askur missed the point of the OP's question, their critique of the movie's "explanation" is a good one. The movie does not deal with the issue in a scientifically valid way at all.
shareOne - The director is the great-grandson of HG Wells.
Two - You've clearly never seen Doctor Who. There are FIXED cemented places and things in time and others which can be changed. You're probably not a physicist or theoretical physicist, the odds that you know anything about the probability or lack thereof of time travel, is slim. If it was and there were time travelers bopping around - do you think they'd be walking up to you and asking you 'when are you from?' not likely.
Three - The movie wasn't -that- bad. There are movies far worse than this. However, opinions are like those things you defecate out of. Everyone has them, not all of them smell good. :shrug:
What mankind knows and understands in the grand scale of -everything- in the universe is probably on a scale of how an ant understands the world. The scientific and technological advances made in the last 100 years are nothing in the grand scheme of things. It wasn't until 5 or so years ago that DNA was finally stripped down and decoded. Hell - we still can't genetically engineer a human adding and removing all the bits we don't want [better brains, taller, get rid of their parents obesity and bad hearts] because we still barely understand it on a fundamental level enough to do that. Sure we can grow ears on the back of mice and clone sheep that in a few short years age to that of what they were cloned from - but that is children's tinker-toys compared to taking Jane and Joe and turning their child into Khan Noonien Singh and his band of merry 'Superhumans'. We've barely even scratched the surface of physics, quantum physics, and theoretical physics [which many times has quantifiable and practical uses in the real world when you unlock the pandora box]
The director could have been Wells' clone for all I care, it would mean *beep*
I have seen Dr. Who. I have also seen Back to the Future and other movies and shows dealing with time travel. Most of them just don't get it right. This movie was either way not a Dr. Who episode or Back to the Future, it was a movie version of The Time Machine, and there is no reason it should follow time travel principles invented by other writers.
"You're probably not a physicist or theoretical physicist, the odds that you know anything about the probability or lack thereof of time travel, is slim."
I can say one thing for sure; you are definitely not a physicist yoursel. I just love it when People who knows less than others are trying to enlighten them. But you're right, I'm not one either, but that doesn't mean fundamental knowledge is beyond my reach. Do you seriously think my comments are grounded in a lack of understanding what physics is concerned? Think again. I may not be Stephen Hawking, but I can tell you for sure that the "laws" we see in this movie is total crap. And trust me, I'm far from the only one. Yes, travel in time with some mechanical device is not scientific accurate either, but the machine itself is an enabling device.
"If it was and there were time travelers bopping around - do you think they'd be walking up to you and asking you 'when are you from?' not likely."
That's the only consequence of time travels you are able to imagine? How cute.
"Three - The movie wasn't -that- bad. There are movies far worse than this. However, opinions are like those things you defecate out of. Everyone has them, not all of them smell good. :shrug:"
Could you really be more infantile than this.
"What mankind knows and understands in the grand scale of -everything- in the universe is probably on a scale of how an ant ... and so on."
The fact that there is much we still don't understand doesn't change the fact that the laws of time travel in this movie were retarded.
This is one of my favourite movies of all time and i will be happy to explain anything. As another person pointed out the situation may have involved alex knowing in his mind why he couldn't save emma, but not being able to deal with the loss of her (letting his emotions overide his logic). It may also be a possibility that scientists in th 1800's hadn't thought about what a 'paradox' situation was. Therefore alex may have not actually been able to figure the situation out himself (limited by his time).
shareScientists in the 1800's (1900's ?) haven't thought about these paradoxes, because they weren't close to building a time-machine. However, the movie tells us otherwise. A scientist has stood up from the crowd and has been able to build one.
So he must have been able to figure out the whole concept of time-travelling, and even put it in practice too. To comprehend the whole time-travelling concept, he must have stumbled into every little aspect, and understood every little detail. So it is quite unlikely he didn't stumbled on this paradox too.
This is a falsehood. Using Madame Curie of the 1800s for my example, she discovered the advent of radiation and how it could be used to make Xrays for medical analysis. BUT she never realized that she was signing her own death warrant (she got cancer at a young age and died). Same with the time traveler... he knew just enough to make a machine (as Curie invented the Xray machine), but not enough to understand all the negative side effects.
The point being that when Alex finally goes back in time, he goes back to save Mara, not Emma, meaning that he got over the loss, even though he ironically actually could have remedied the same loss.
sharebecause the concept of time travel was new to Alex, unlike we the audience who have seen hundreds of time travel stories
shareI think the point was, that if Helen didnt die, a predestination paradox would occur (which according to the movie's logic seems impossible). If she didnt die, he wouldnt build the machine and thus be caught in this loop.
Review AE http://www.reviewae.blogspot.com & http://ireview-ae.blogspot.com
He did figure it out. Well, sort've.
When he was talking to Filby: "I could come back a thousand times, and she'd die a thousand ways.
He knew that Mara's death was written and stone that there's nothing that could change that. Subconsciously, however, I believe he really knew why, but couldn't come to terms with it, as other members have said.
He could had just tried to stop the crook before he did anything.
shareMost people on here don't seem to have figured it out having watched the film all the way through.
shareI think the point was, that if Helen didnt die, a predestination paradox would occur (which according to the movie's logic seems impossible). If she didnt die, he wouldnt build the machine and thus be caught in this loop.There actually is a way around that paradox.
are you stoned sdtony42?
or you couldn't even figure out the movie at the basest level?
are you stoned sdtony42?Feel free to explain why im wrong. share
or you couldn't even figure out the movie at the basest level?
This is why it wouldn't work. If present Alex went back to before she was killed, faked her death and brought her with him to the future. Then when past Alex finishes the machine and goes back to save her, she will be gone. So what does he do? He probably goes back further in time to get her before future Alex. But doing so means that future Alex could never have brought her with him in the first place.
So the whole idea just creates more paradoxes.
I agree, that is interesting thinking. I think that might work.
Unless you assume the strong form of the paradox which would state that without her initial death he wouldn't have built the time machine hence he would not have been able to manufacture the alternate yet equally effective motivations for him to invent the machine.
But did it even have to be that complicated. From what I recall he is always trying to change the past so she doesn't die. What about simply bringing her with him into the future beyond the time she is killed?
I can't really give a reason why this would work given what we know of the universe, but seems worth a try - though not as fool proof of your method.
If somebody put a dead body in my house, set fire to it, and then told me to go the future with them I would think they were crazy!
Nice way round the paradox though.
Nobody's life span is "set in stone". The reason why reality wouldn't let him save her is because her death is the DIRECT cause of why the time machine was built. AND, in this particular iteration of time travel, a paradox can't happen because time itself is apparently self-correcting in such a case. Had he built the time machine due to innate scientific curiosity before she had died , he probably could have saved her. The only way he(and we) could be absolute sure though would be to use the machine to keep someone who is not a direct cause of its creation from dying when they were recorded as doing so.
BTW, I find it funny that other posters were arguing about this from the viewpoint that there is only one way to time travel. As far as we know, it's impossible and the only exposure we've ever had to it is in fiction. So, there are no absolute rules about how it works only those that are set up by the author. lol
Watch your tongue, boy, if you like this job.
LIKE this job!?!
This is why it wouldn't work. If present Alex went back to before she was killed, faked her death and brought her with him to the future. Then when past Alex finishes the machine and goes back to save her, she will be gone. So what does he do? He probably goes back further in time to get her before future Alex. But doing so means that future Alex could never have brought her with him in the first place.Paradoxes are only an issue if your dealing with one singular timeline. The fact that he can change the past(changing the way Emma dies) without it effecting him in the future(unlike Mary McFly in BTTF) means that there has to be multiple timelines/parallel universes or whatever. So basically he should have been able to go back and just snatch up Emma and said screw any past Alex's. They can fend for themselves.
So the whole idea just creates more paradoxes.