MovieChat Forums > The Time Machine (2002) Discussion > Is changing the future really any differ...

Is changing the future really any different from changing the past?

posted 14 years ago by sanddragon939
4 replies | jump to latest

Haven't seen this movie for ages but it just occured to me when I was reading some other time travel sites.

There are any number of explanations for why changing the past is impossible. In the case of this movie, the reason is one of motivation-Alex's motivation to build the machine was to save Emma, her death is solely what causes him to go back in time and try to save her, therefore he is destined to fail no matter how many times he tries. Which is a fair enough explanation...

But later in the movie, Alex travels further beyond 802701, to a post-apocalyptic future ruled by Morlocks. He then travels back to 802701 and rigs the time machine to explode, destroying the Morlock race and ensuring that the future he's just seen doesn't happen. He himself explicitly states that he's changing the future. The movie implies that he's changing the future...and that its possible.

Except, is changing the future REALLY that different from changing the past, from a time traveller's POV at least-

I mean, consider this-when a time traveller goes into the future, witnesses it, and returns to the present, whatever he sees in the future is technically, from his POV at least, in the past. That means, whatever he sees in the future, whatever experiances he has in the future, while chronologically in the future, are in the past as far as his personal history/timeline is concerned. And keeping this in mind, it means that the same rules for changing the past, should logically apply to changing the future-which means that the future can't be changed!

Consider it this way-Alex witnesses Emma's death. Grief-stricken, he builds the time machine and goes back to try to save her. But if he saved her, his past self would never be stricken by grief, never build the time machine and go back and save her in the first place-thus it is impossible for him to save her as his very mission to save her is dependent on her dying (and his failing by extension).

Now, at the end of the movie, Alex goes into the distant future and sees the world over-run by Morlocks. He then returns to 802701. What he sees in the future motivates him to prevent it by destroying the Morlock race. Except, that when Alex's trip to the future is part of HIS past. Alex witnessing the Morlocks ruling the earth is pretty much equivalent to his witnessing Emma's death-they are both firmly a part of HIS past and thus cannot be changed.

Consider, if Alex really DID succeed in changing the future by destroying the Morlocks. So the Morlocks wouldn't rule the earth. But then his past self in the time machine who earlier travelled to the distant future, when he arrived, wouldn't see the world over-run by Morlocks. Therefore, when he returned, he wouldn't destroy the Morlock race, causing the original future to 'happen' again and so on...a never-ending paradox...Basically Alex cannot change the future because any attempt on his part to change the future, if successful, would negate itself.

Of course, no where in the movie is it indicated that Alex really DID suceed in replacing the Morlock-ruled future he saw with another one...after all, maybe some Morlocks survived in other parts of the world and THEY took over...although that does prove to be a sad ending, with Alex blowing up the time machine and achieving nothing.

Speaking of which, here's another way Alex COULD have actually changed the future/his past without paradox. Alex learns from the hologram in 2030 that he went missing in 1903. But at the end of the movie, if he chooses, he could have taken the Uber-Morlocks advice and returned to 1903 in the time machine. Thus, he wouldn't have disappeared in 1903. This would have the effect of changing the future, for the hologram wouldn't know that he disappeared in 1903, but it would also subtly change HIS past, as his past self now wouldn't know that he was supposed to 'disappear' in 1903...and of course, his not knowing that he was supposed to disappear wouldn't really impact his decision to return or not in the end...(of course, as it turns out, the hologram's 'prediction' turned out right in the end...)

[–] ShadowsGathered 14 years ago

I'm only going to address one part of your post... the part about the future already reflecting Alex's past, and him having created that future by destroying his time machine and, hence, the Morlocks... when Alex traveled into the future, he was using his time machine to get there... it was still whole, in one piece, and working... therefore, the future he observed was one created without the time machine having been destroyed... so when he returned to Mara and told her he was changing the future (by destroying the machine), he really was changing the future... the future that he'd originally observed.

... the hardest thing in this world is to live in it...

[–] Katiedot 14 years ago

Damn, I didn't think of that! Yes, I guessed they messed that bit up because after he'd seen teh future, effectively he went back to change the past by saving the girl.

So if it's true that you can't change the past, all we can say is that the future he visited is what would have happened even though he had saved the girl.

Grim.

George Clooney forum, news & gossip updated daily: http://www.clooneysopenhouse.com/

[–] transmentalist 13 years ago

You're definitely right that the future is just the far-future's past

But I actually don't think that violates the "rule" set forth in the movie - it wasn't so much that you couldn't change the past. It was that you couldn't alter a chain of causation.

Saving Emma would eliminate the time machine, creating a paradox that this movie's reality considers unacceptable. So it's impossible to save Emma.

But changing the far future has no effect on causation - Hartdegen was going to return to Mara's time to rescue her, regardless. He was not "caused" to do so by the Morlock-controlled far-future he saw. So he's free to change that future because the change would not interrupt the chain of causation.

At least, that's what this movie's version of time travel seems to imply to me.

(Although, it could be argued that many his actions after his return to Mara's time WERE motivated by the far future he saw, and therefore DO violate causality. And it could ALSO be argued that the far future is inevitable, and/or that the foundation he's laying in Mara's time will either fail to prevent the future or will actually cause it to happen)

[–] Raimar_Lunardi 10 years ago

No, a time traveller can NEVER change anything, from past or from future IF this thing is important and comes "before" in the time traveller's timeline... even if is a future event, the time traveller already experienced it, and if it changes, his experience changes... and PARADOX... (the ending of this movie is clear, humans(Eloi) are *beep* in the long-run...)