MovieChat Forums > Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (2009) Discussion > This doesn't make sense (plothole?)

This doesn't make sense (plothole?)

posted 12 years ago by Tuum90
4 replies | jump to latest

In the post-apocalyptic scene, we see future Pete stopping Ray and Toby from getting into the toilet, which set in motion that Pete ends up in the woods alone. Future Pete remembers being in the woods alone, so obviously an earlier future Pete did the same things during his timeline. Every action is repeated in the exact same way during the entire movie, so they're not actually changing anything by time travelling (we also see the red-hooded Ray at the bar in an earlier scene, another example that everything repeats itself). Now this is fine, a lot of time travel movies obey to the laws of 'you can't change what already happened'. It's like going back to save someone from dying, then finding out that whatever you did to stop it actually set the events that lead to that person's death in motion.

However, in one of the final scenes, Ray manages to knock a beer over the piece of paper and the timeline is reset. The first time we see this scene, from Pete's perspective, the exact same thing happened. Ray knocked over the beer and made the paper unreadable this time as well (it should be, since as we see during the whole movie, every scene is repeated in the exact same way), so why didn't the timeline reset then? What's different the second time? The exact same thing happened, so the fact that the timeline didn't reset here really strays from the laws the movie holds up during the entire story, so this doesn't make sense at all.

You could argue that there are parallel timelines, and that the group that was attacked in the bar (the one we see from Pete's perspective) gets reset from their own perspective, just like the group we follow during the movie. This could make sense, except the fact that there is a timekeeper organisation implies that there's only one timeline. It wouldn't be neccesary to prevent any changes to the past if these changes would only split up the timeline they are applied to into a parallel timeline. The timeline from the timekeepers' perspective wouldn't be affected by changes to the past, if there were actually parallel timelines. Since they're desperate to 'keep' the time, it's clear that there is only one timeline.

Any ideas on this?

[–] huibie88 12 years ago

That's the problem with any time-traveling movie where in the end they manage to 'erase' what started it. Because technically it would also erase your very memory of ever having done that. And also, it would erase the whole beer tipping scene, so essentially the paper would still have the writing on it. And as they have no memory whatsoever of what happened, the same event will play out again.

The only way it would NOT play out the same is if somehow at one point a random value would be different. Suppose this time, Cassie is not recruited to time travel but someone more diligent who doesn't talk to Ray. Then the ensuing line of events would not be the same as the loop in the previous section.

As soon as a wrong random value is returned, a paradox would be created that will only be resolved when it reaches its own destruction. Upon destruction a new random value will be chosen, over and over again, until the paradox is no longer created.

So what you end up with is a straight line, without time-traveling that is observable or has any effect. In other words you might say that no time-traveling is happening at all as it is the only way to avoid paradoxal loops that need to be resolved by its own elimination. It's like a programmer coding and debugging a program, where all the user gets to see is the finished product without any twists and turns the programmer has gone through.

[–] lotsofwordz 12 years ago

Actually, a better model is the decaying sawtooth function, as explained on a website whose URL I have lost - it anaylses dozens of time-travel films.

However, there are still lots of goofs. A minor one is: where did he get the toy gun from? A more serious one: why did Meredith not take the piece of paper with her to ensure its safety?

[–] avortac 12 years ago

"However, there are still lots of goofs. A minor one is: where did he get the toy gun from? A more serious one: why did Meredith not take the piece of paper with her to ensure its safety? "

The first one is not a goof. He made it for his job, it was even stated by Millie or whoever it was (I don't think her name was 'Meredith' though, but could be wrong - I don't pay much attention to names usually, especially in a movie). The gun is shown in the very beginning of the movie, and a short while afterwards he is shown to shove the gun into his backpack, and I wondered at that point whether he's stealing the company property, or if such a hi-tech-looking plastic toy gun could be his own, which would of course be ludicrous, especially knowing that the suit and other props seem to be owned by the amusement park, why would they not make a gun for him also? I mean, I know he's a nerd and all, but it's a bit of a stretch for the viewer to believe that he'd actually go through that much trouble and effort and money just to work at such a lowly job where he can get fired that easily anyway.

But the toy gun is definitely explained - he got it from his backpack, where he put it after he had been fired from the job, where he used it, which is why he had it.

The piece of paper .. that's a good question.

I wondered about the whole point of erasing someone RIGHT after they have CREATED their work - wouldn't it be better to 'erase' them right after other people have FOUND OUT about their great creation? Or are the 'editors' also some kind of PR agents, who let the world know about past artists' greatest works? Which would of course be a bit dubious, because then they could claim -anything- is someone's greatest work, and who would believe some agency as their only/original source of information anyway?

I mean, wouldn't they rather let the artist get famous "legitimately", like he always did in history, and THEN erase him/her (most likely 'him' though), than come to 'erase' them RIGHT after they have created their best work, in 100% anonymity?

This movie really doesn't explain anything about time travel, for a FAQ, it's lousy, and I was very disappointed.

I was expecting more like a 'talkative movie', in the vein of 'The Interview' - intelligent, realistic, intense, but also contemplative and clever in many ways.

I was expecting this movie to be just three guys actually talking like intelligent people would, about all the time travel paradoxes and things, and to sort this whole topic out clearly and properly once and for all, so no one would have to keep writing long "time travel paradox" messages in forums, blogs and boards.

But instead, we get this typical, predictable, goofy, boring, depressing, misandristic and even gory (welcome to post-2000) "injected romance" (AGAIN! AAAAAAAAAAAA! How many movies need INJECTED ROMANCE? Like someone said, it might just as well be injected square dance - just as crazy and out of place!) "adventure story" that has no adventure or exploration, and which happens 70% in a dirty toilet!

Maybe 70% is an exaggaration, but come on - how many times did we need to see a pub's dirty toilet? I'd rather have seen the nature trip that Pete experienced, but no. Instead we see the typical, bleak future with huge ants (maybe a nod to 'It Came from The Desert', an old Amiga game), eternal snow and hopeless dullness and no nature, etc..

This movie actually raises more questions than it answers. Actually, I don't think it answered ANY questions about time travel, but created it's own unsolvable paradoxes and unexplained time travel features and quirks that should be impossible, at least to someone who thinks about them a little bit.

************************** SPOILERS BELOW *************************************

SPOILERS:

And when do time travel movie makers learn that you CAN'T DUPLICATE PEOPLE BY TIME TRAVEL (except TEMPORARILY - think of Marty McFly near the end of Back to the Future, when there's two of them - but the other is very quickly gone, same would happen to any "clone" or "duplicate" or "copy" - they would be quickly gone - and every 'duplication' creates a lot of problems anyway - think of Calvin&Hobbes and his time traveling to get his homework assignment from his future self)?

[–] RadulovichEnvelope 12 years ago

But this time travel is not set up as a "you can't change what already happened." We know this because of the people that go back in time and kill artist (etc...) right after their greatest achievement. They know what happens if those people stay alive and blah blah. So the time travel in this show is set up as being able to change things.